• On GameSpot: Wii Fit tells 10-year-old she's fat
January 21, 2009 12:45 PM PST

Supreme Court deals death blow to antiporn law

Posted by Declan McCullagh
  • Font size
  • Print

Caption: ACLU attorney Ann Beeson speaks to reporters after Supreme Court oral arguments on Web porn law in this 2001 file photograph.

(Credit: Declan McCullagh)

The U.S. Department of Justice has been trying since 1998 to convince courts that a federal antiporn law targeting sexually explicit Web sites was constitutional.

No longer. On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected prosecutors' last-ditch defense of the Child Online Protection Act, meaning that the law will not be enforced.

COPA was enacted during the anti-Internet porn scares of the late 1990s, in part as a narrower answer to a previous Net censorship law that also met its demise in the courts. Any commercial Web site operator that posts "material that is harmful to minors" faces six months in prison and a fine of up to $50,000.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed suit against the law in Philadelphia, saying the prohibition was so broad and vague that even traditional publishers could face fines and imprisonment. Plaintiffs included Salon.com, which occasionally publishes racy material, the California-based lesbian-gay A Different Light Bookstore, PlanetOut, and a now-defunct coalition that included CNET Networks (publisher of CNET News), The New York Times Co., and Reuters. (A CNET executive testified against the law in January 1999.)

"It is not the role of the government to decide what people can see and do on the Internet," ACLU staff attorney Chris Hansen said in a statement on Wednesday. "Those are personal decisions that should be made by individuals and their families."

As a side note, it was the Justice Department's ongoing defense of COPA in 2006 that led to its subpoena to Google asking for a "random sampling" of 1 million Internet addresses accessible through Google's popular search engine and a random sampling of 1 million search queries submitted to Google over a one-week period.

Since the initial proceedings, the case has bounced around the court system without reaching a resolution. During that time, the Supreme Court handed down two preliminary rulings, once in 2002 and again in 2004.

The first time, it sent the case back to an appeals court with instructions to broaden its legal analysis beyond the law's interaction with community standards; the second time, it wanted a review of whether "technological developments" have affected the law's constitutionality.

The Supreme Court's 2004 ruling against the Justice Department and in favor of the ACLU commanded a narrow 5-4 majority, with justices Stephen Breyer, William Rehnquist, Sandra Day O'Connor, and (separately) Antonin Scalia dissenting.

The majority opinion, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, upheld a temporary injunction barring prosecutors from enforcing COPA.

It was Breyer's dissent that had some free-speech advocates worried. It said COPA places "minor burdens on some protected material--burdens that adults wishing to view the material may overcome at modest cost. At the same time, it significantly helps to achieve a compelling congressional goal, protecting children from exposure to commercial pornography. There is no serious, practically available 'less restrictive' way similarly to further this compelling interest. Hence the Act is constitutional." Scalia went even further.

But the court didn't seem to want to revisit COPA a third time. Wednesday's ruling was a mere refusal to even hear the case, issued without explanation.

Even among antiporn groups, support for COPA waned as the years progressed, and federal prosecutors focused on obscenity and child pornography.

Another reason for the erosion of support may be that because the law was written so long ago, it's surprisingly limited. It applies only to material delivered "by means of the World Wide Web"--meaning that it doesn't cover peer-to-peer file sharing, the Usenet newsgroups that alarm New York's attorney general, games like Virtual Hottie 2, those naughty things happening in Second Life, videos watched via a third-party iPhone application, or streaming porn viewed through the VideoLAN Client, RealPlayer, or Windows Media Player desktop applications.

Declan McCullagh, CNET News' chief political correspondent, chronicles the intersection of politics and technology. He has covered politics, technology, and Washington, D.C., for more than a decade, which has turned him into an iconoclast and a skeptic of anyone who says, "We oughta have a new federal law against this." E-mail Declan.
Recent posts from Politics and Law
Obama picks BSA's antipiracy enforcer for high-level post
House panel approves green-tech portions of 'stimulus' bill
GOP, Dems spar over broadband 'stimulus' and FCC powers
First e-mailing prez: Obama keeps his BlackBerry
Obama may be able to keep his BlackBerry after all
Patent office rejects subdomain patent claims
Obama's Whitehouse.gov: Frozen in time?
Obama to .gov agencies: More Internet openness
Add a Comment (Log in or register) 31 comments
by oldmanangry January 21, 2009 1:45 PM PST
http://sethf.com/gore/
Reply to this comment
by gefitz January 21, 2009 1:46 PM PST
Hmm. What does this mean for CIPA?
Reply to this comment
by jpmays January 21, 2009 2:13 PM PST
I seriously doubt that this will affect the CIPA program, as this is specifically directed at schools and libraries that received government funding for implementing communications technologies.
by declan00 January 21, 2009 2:17 PM PST
It has nothing to do with CIPA/library filtering. Different law, different legal challenge. The Supreme Court upheld CIPA in 2003:
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1028_3-1019952.html
by pithenumber January 21, 2009 3:46 PM PST
I hate CIPA
50 web filters tested, 45 bypassed in less than 5 minutes each, the other 5 in less than 10
Most techniques can be found on Google.

That is how useless web filters are, CIPA does quite little to help kids at school not look at porn. CIPA needs to changed, it is useless in it current form of requiring internet filters.
Easy ways to get past filter 100% chance one/combo of a few of them will work
VPN
Tor
Tether to cell phone
Linux on a Flash drive
by gsmiller88 January 21, 2009 2:15 PM PST
Wow...10 years worth of wasted tax money.
Reply to this comment
by mooney101 January 22, 2009 9:37 AM PST
I agree 100%. Whoever wrote this law and laws like this, should have to pay back what was lost. Anyone in that line of work should know that the vague language used would mean the law's death. They probably just pushed it through to get some votes at the time.
by Seaspray0 January 22, 2009 2:36 PM PST
It could have been on a larger scale, such as the constitutional ammendment for prohibition followed by the constitutional ammendment repealing prohibition.
by pentest January 21, 2009 7:12 PM PST
Was this an actual ruling or did the court refuse to hear more?

Either way, I am surprised. Too many right wingers on the court for freedom to be able to breath easy.
Reply to this comment
by declan00 January 21, 2009 9:28 PM PST
pentest: from the article: "But the court didn't seem to want to revisit COPA a third time. Wednesday's ruling was a mere refusal to even hear the case, issued without explanation."
by wheel61 January 22, 2009 11:40 PM PST
Pentest, don't worry about those right wing folks They will protect you instead of allowing those bleeding heart liberals to move a Hamas operative or Taliban captain in next door to you Oops, I forgot that you are for freedom so you enjoy your new neighbors when they arrive and are out on their terraces early in the morning facing east while kneeling on their prayer rugs And when the "man" comes and knocks on your door and tells you that you have to do the same as they do from now on, ya'll better get on down to WalMart and get your prayer rug before they are all gone!!!!
by Atlas_ January 21, 2009 11:26 PM PST
the sewer of online porn is and has been open and out of control since the first days of the web!! Why in the WORLD would any of you expect a court that allows humans to slaughter their own unborn young to a god of "a better opportunity" to slow or even STOP the exploitation of children. We as a Nation are in HUGE trouble.
Reply to this comment
by Harrison912 January 22, 2009 10:03 AM PST
Atlas, I appreciate your comment and couldn't have said it better myself.

As web site owner of safety and security products that includes a keylogger designed to help parents monitor their children's internet usage, I support efforts to keep our children safe on line but I also understand the free speech issue.

Our Nation is in HUGE trouble on many fronts.
by 6is9 January 22, 2009 10:16 AM PST
Atlas, was it for the sake of brevity you didn't mention the thousands and thousands of children who died between 1991 and 2003 in Iraq as American sanctions caused the infant mortality rate to increase by well over 100%? Maybe it slipped your mind that thousands more children have died in Iraq because the president you might have been tricked into voting for in 2000 lied to you and started an illegal 3 trillion dollar war there? (Of course, on principle you wouldn't have voted to re-elect Bush in 2004, because then the blood would be on your hands, and you would never condone the killing of innocent babies, right?) For brevity on my part, I won't add Afghanistan, or our America's failure to act in sub-Saharan Africa as millions of children are dying there. I also don't have the time to bring up the many thousands of American children who've died as our own infant mortality rate has risen during these years that politicians clearly pandered to anti-abortionists like you. You surely spoke out when you saw those same politicians failing to fund prenatal or postnatal health care for women and families who are uninsured and/or too poor to afford it. So it would be needlessly time-consuming to go into how forcing a mother to work so that she can get health care for her child might mean she has to pay for child care while she works and then, because she has to pay for food AND rent, she has to cut corners on nutrition. Anyway, nobody has to tell you, Atlas, that if a child is mostly raised by people she doesn't really know, or if he has to take care of himself after school when he's older, that that child is more likely to parent a child at a very young age. It?s too obvious to mention that the detrimental effect on society is in part what creates pressure for pro-abortion laws, isn't it? I won't waste my time on the death penalty, either. It's a given you are opposed to it. It's a sin to take the life a human being. We are commanded not to kill. You would never pick and choose, or use one verse of scripture to justify execution and ignore another that condemns it. You know that man?s judgment can be wrong, but God?s can never be. You know that DNA testing has proven the innocence of scores of prisoners on death row. You also know that condoning execution for what might have been a false conviction could imperil your innocence when you stand before your Creator. Indeed I'm sure you don't mind, Atlas, that I took the time to clarify and elaborate for anyone who might read this, your full and consistent advocacy for the sanctity of life. For what God created let know man destroy, huh Atlas?
by Seaspray0 January 22, 2009 2:49 PM PST
"I won't waste my time on the death penalty, either. It's a given you are opposed to it."

@6is9. Dude, I live in Texas. http://www.lwvil.org/download/dp_state_statistics.pdf
by make_or_break January 22, 2009 3:27 PM PST
What's this 'we' business? The internet is a GLOBAL entity that transcends borders. This cesspool doesn't start or stop at the outline of the U.S. of A.
by January 22, 2009 9:05 PM PST
You knew someone like 6is9 would have to come out as a Bush-basher and can't see what his beloved 'democats' have also done.
by wheel61 January 22, 2009 9:58 PM PST
Hey Atlas, those who truly love God in this Nation are not in trouble, only God's enemies. By the way 6is9, ya'll might want to learn how to correctly study God's word I'm really certain that He would have us take care of those enemies of Christianity that would strap bombs to their own children and send them into Jewish synagogues and Christian churches and then detonate those bombs remotely I firmly believe that is why this Nation at barely past 200 years old is the superpower of superpowers in this world If you truly understood God, you would know that He would not allow this Nation to be a superpower unless we were doing it correctly. So, before you start passing judgement on other people, ya'll better get a better handle on what ya'll are yappin' about!!!!!!
by Probitas January 22, 2009 3:56 AM PST
Not a fan of porn; am a fan of freedom of speech. I think there are other ways to limit the effects of porn. In the meantime, I bought a copy of this book called, "The Underground Guide to Teenage Sexuality," for myself and my pre-teen and teen. This issue is addressed (among many others) and we're talking about potential harm and consequences with porn, online predators, and other 'electronic age' threats.
Reply to this comment
by Dalkorian January 22, 2009 2:32 PM PST
Wow, bingo. Ignorance is never the answer. If you teach your kids this stuff exists, it's effects and what you think of it, they won't be caught off guard when they DO encounter it (they likely will somewhere, sometime - if not on the internet then in a magazine, a film, on the street through an open window ...). Protect your kids with intelligence, not bomb shelters of ignorance.

It's refreshing to see someone else get it.
by skuts January 22, 2009 5:13 AM PST
I have never seen porn on the internet that I didn't go and look for. If you don't want to see online porn, don't look.
Reply to this comment
by Hey_Radar January 22, 2009 6:13 AM PST
That's amazing that you haven't got infected with spyware that does all those pop-ups with inappropriate material on it. Also I have seen kids go to porn sites by accident by mistyping the URL.

I do think that it should be controlled. Just like how they put black bags around the covers of the magazines, or the movie ratings systems. I don't understand how we can have those controls and not an internet one. Theaters can get fined if they sell a 'R' ticket to a child.
by ryokowerx January 22, 2009 7:03 AM PST
Thats a great idea, Hey Radar. We can apply the same standards to homes! We'll fine the owner of the computer if their kids view porn. I mean, after all, they are providing the means to access pornography just like your theater example. So, therefore, they are liable. We do the same to parents of kids if they skip school so why not the same with the internet?

The ACLU had it right. Its a parenting issue NOT a governmental one. Because the federal government has worked so well in the past when they got involved in private matters...

- James "Getting REAL tired of the 'for the children' crap" S.
by duggerdm January 22, 2009 9:30 AM PST
Perhaps commenters should try to understand that the internet is a globally created process and as such the laws of any one country will not be effective in controlling what appears on it. Expecting our gov. to provide blinders for the ignorant and the intellectually challenged is unrealistic and impossible legality. Basically if you are too time, energy or intellectually limited to learn how to use the internet -it's available spam and spy ware counter measures, you might consider just reading the news paper.
by Hey_Radar January 22, 2009 10:33 AM PST
I'm being reasonable to it. I'm just saying they can put some sort of 'standards' around it. Such as some sort of tag that embedded in the site that says "mature" so that you can set your computer to block it.

Even if it is just the main page says "mature audiences only" that you have to click to continue. At least you aren't slapped in the face with it right away. And its not just for the children. I wonder how many marriages it would have saved.

I know it isn't perfect, but as they say "Locks/blocks are just to keep the honest people honest".
by Len Bullard January 22, 2009 8:11 AM PST
Phil Rosedale at Linden Labs announced that LL would be working to remove the separation between adults and children in Second Life because it limits LL's access to education markets.

http://www.virtualworldsnews.com/2009/01/rosedale-second-life-should-drop-age-divisions.html
Reply to this comment
by AXG January 22, 2009 3:25 PM PST
It is not the role of government to decide whether one person is allowed to murder another. Those are personal decisions that should be made by individuals and their families.
Reply to this comment
by declan00 January 22, 2009 5:25 PM PST
Is an adult watching other adults engaging in a consensual activity without any clothes the same as an adult murdering someone else, which presumably means *without* their consent?
by Ex-nuke January 22, 2009 7:32 PM PST
The government does not and cannot control whether or not you murder someone, the best they can manage is to bring you in front of a jury and punish you after the fact if you are found guilty. I'm sure you would like for the "government" to look after you the way your parents did when you were a child but it's time to grow up.
by mniemi January 22, 2009 5:28 PM PST
Pop-ups? Spyware? Hey radar, you don't need government protection, you just need Firefox. I haven't had a pop-up in years.
Our legislatures are always ready to criminalize any type of behavior they dislike, because it makes them look tough, and as we all know, toughness solves every problem. Just like the war on drugs, we can address this issue through vast infusions of taxpayer money. The economic growth of the prison industry depends on it.
Reply to this comment
by krylowski January 22, 2009 10:13 PM PST
Am I reading this correctly; shouldn't children BE protected from pornography not the other way around. Has the ACLU completely lost their minds..................upholding the rights of criminals was bad enough but now child molestors. Our Supreme court upheld this nonsense ????
Reply to this comment
 See all 31 Comments >>
advertisement

In the news now

What's next for Apple's Mac?

It's been 25 years since Apple changed computing with the debut of the Macintosh. Storied product may have been eclipsed by the iPhone of late, but will still evolve.
• Complete anniversary coverage


Microsoft cutting jobs, but not products

But is Redmond doing enough to keep the recession at bay? Some analysts say the software maker needs to scale back its ambitions even further.


About Politics and Law

Lead contributor Declan McCullagh has covered politics, technology, and Washington, D.C., for more than a decade, which has turned him into an iconoclast and a skeptic of anyone who says, "We oughta have a new federal law against this."

Add this feed to your online news reader

Politics and Law topics

advertisement
advertisement

Inside CNET News

Scroll Left Scroll Right