Techdirt. Stories filed under "copa" Easily digestible tech news... http://www.techdirt.com/ en-us Techdirt. Stories filed under "copa"http://www.techdirt.com/images/td-88x31.gifhttp://www.techdirt.com/ Wed, 21 Jan 2009 14:03:50 PST Ding Dong, COPA Is Dead Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090121/1357433480.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090121/1357433480.shtml knocked it down again, and today the Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal... meaning that COPA is about as dead as can be. This is definitely a big win for free speech online.

But, of course, just as COPA followed the CDA, have no fear that politicians looking for headlines and photo ops about how they "protect the children" are working hard on new legislation -- such as DOPA -- the Deleting Online Predators Act -- and will continue to push the boundaries of what sort of speech is allowed online. All this really does is waste taxpayer money on unconstitutional attempts to restrict free speech. And, for what? Recent studies have shown time and time again that the threat to children online is relatively small compared to the hype -- and the best response is educating children, rather than restricting speech for all. Somehow, though, I doubt politicians will recognize that any time soon -- especially when lobbyists for companies that sell filtering tools keep beating down their doors with stories of the horrors of online content.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> dead,-dead,-dead http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090121/1357433480 Tue, 29 Jul 2008 10:33:00 PDT As COPA Goes Down, DOPA Comes Back Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080728/1514521814.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080728/1514521814.shtml the COPA law is unconstitutional, some folks in Congress are trying to bring back its sister legislation, DOPA. COPA (the Child Online Protection Act) required websites to block objectionable material. DOPA (the Deleting Online Predators Act) is much more narrowly focused, requiring schools and libraries to put in place filters that block access to social networks. Why? Well, politicians are under the false belief that this somehow stops predators.

There are just two big problems with this reasoning. First, studies have shown that the supposed "threat" of online predators has been blown way out of proportion. Most kids are not targeted by online predators on social networks, and the few who are tend to know enough to deal with them. But you won't hear the politicians pushing DOPA say that. Instead, they claim: "as more children flock to social networking sites like MySpace and Facebook, we've seen a corresponding increase of online sexual predators." According to whom? Over the past few months we've pointed to three separate reports showing that the reports of the threat have been greatly overstated.

But, more importantly, even if predators are a threat on social networks, isn't it a much better solution to let kids use them in schools and at libraries where there can be reasonable oversight, and where educators can teach the kids how to deal with online threats? Banning access from schools and libraries only guarantees that kids will find other ways to get to those social networks when no one's there to watch them. And, by making it seem like it's somehow underground, it will seem even "cooler" to make use of those sites. And, at the same time, teachers, parents and librarians won't feel compelled to teach kids how to use those sites safely, because the use will be totally hidden from view. How is that possibly a good result?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> ropa-dopa http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080728/1514521814 Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:49:20 PDT Once Again: Court Says That COPA Anti-Porn Law Is Unconstitutional Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080722/1400581762.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080722/1400581762.shtml kicking the case back down to the district level, where the judge noted the law was unconstitutional. The government appealed (of course), and subpoenaed data from just about everyone. You may recall the legal fuss over the government's demand that pretty much every search engine hand over their logs? That was part of the case the government was trying to make -- and about the best they could do was to prove that (gasp!) there's some porn online.

Of course, since porn is legal, proving that there's porn online is hardly a rationale for restricting free speech -- which is what COPA would do. It would require sites to make sure that either no adult content showed up anywhere on their site, or verify the age of everyone who visited their site. That is quite an extreme limitation on free speech, which is exactly what court after court after court has said. And, now we can add to that the Appeals Court who has now struck down COPA yet again, pointing out that it's a clear violation of the First Amendment and chilling to freedom of speech. It also noted that there's simply no reason that parents can't deal with themselves through the use of filters:
"It is apparent that COPA, like the Communications Decency Act before it, 'effectively suppresses a large amount of speech that adults have a constitutional right to receive and to address to one another,'... and thus is overbroad. For this reason, COPA violates the First Amendment. These burdens would chill protected speech."
Interesting that this comes at the same time that Andrew Cuomo and NY State are bullying ISPs to effectively do what COPA would have demanded. Hopefully Comcast will send Andrew Cuomo a copy of the Appeals Court decision. In the meantime, the Justice Department is indicating that it will appeal to the Supreme Court -- so this case is still not over.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> and-again-and-again-and-again http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080722/1400581762 Wed, 31 Oct 2007 18:34:00 PDT Will The Courts Finally Find One Of Congress's Attempt To Protect Children Online Constitutional? Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071031/033844.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071031/033844.shtml "protecting the children" -- even when those laws quite often tend to be unconstitutional restrictions on free speech. While state legislatures keep on passing unconstitutional bans on video game sales to children (and keep getting smacked down by the courts), at the federal level, Congress basically just keeps trying to rewrite laws that get trashed by the courts, hoping that eventually, it will find that magic formula that's allowed. As you may recall, the worst parts of the Communications Decency Act got thrown out in court about a decade ago, only to be followed up by similar, but slightly different laws. There was the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) which was smacked down earlier this year.

The Supreme Court is apparently hearing a case about another, similar, but more narrowly focused law, called the Child Pornography Prevention Act -- and even though a lower court found the law unconstitutional, some feel that the Supreme Court's early questioning suggests it might not have a huge problem with the law. Of course, it sounds like they were helped along by the lawyer making the case against the law. When the justices asked him to describe a situation where an innocent person would be harmed by the law, he was unable to do so. The key issue is whether or not advertising that you have child pornography is still a crime -- even if what you have isn't actually pornographic, and apparently many of the justices don't have a problem with that being illegal. Of course, the lines are a little blurred by the details of this particular case, where the guy in question did, in fact, have child pornography -- it's just that it happened to be different child pornography than what he had offered. So while there is no question over his guilt on possession of child porn, there is the question of whether or not he's guilty of advertising it -- even though what he advertised didn't exist. Either way, it sounds like maybe, just maybe, Congress has finally constructed a statue for protecting children that is narrowly defined enough to remain constitutional.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> we'll-soon-find-out http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20071031/033844