Child Online Protection Act Essay

On By In 1

Not to be confused with the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) or the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA).

The Child Online Protection Act[1] (COPA)[2] was a law in the United States of America, passed in 1998 with the declared purpose of restricting access by minors to any material defined as harmful to such minors on the Internet. The law, however, never took effect, as three separate rounds of litigation led to a permanent injunction against the law in 2009.

The law was part of a series of efforts by US lawmakers legislating over Internet pornography. Parts of the earlier and much broader Communications Decency Act had been struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1997 (Reno v. ACLU); COPA was a direct response to that decision, narrowing the range of material covered. COPA only limits commercial speech and only affects providers based within the United States.

COPA required all commercial distributors of "material harmful to minors" to restrict their sites from access by minors. "Material harmful to minors" was defined as material that by "contemporary community standards" was judged to appeal to the "prurient interest" and that showed sexual acts or nudity (including female breasts). This is a much broader standard than obscenity.

Litigation history[edit]

The federal government was enjoined from enforcing COPA by a court order in 1998. In 1998, the United States enacted the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) to restrict access by minors to any material defined as harmful to such minors on the Internet. In 1999, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld the injunction and struck down the law, ruling that it was too broad in using "community standards" as part of the definition of harmful materials. In May 2002, the Supreme Court reviewed this ruling, found the given reason insufficient and returned the case to the Circuit Court; the law remained blocked. On March 6, 2003, the 3rd Circuit Court again struck down the law as unconstitutional, this time finding that it would hinder protected speech among adults. The government again sought review in the Supreme Court.[3]

On June 29, 2004, in Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU),[4] the Supreme Court upheld the injunction on enforcement, ruling that the law was likely to be unconstitutional. Notably, the court mentioned that "filtering’s superiority to COPA is confirmed by the explicit findings of the Commission on Child Online Protection, which Congress created to evaluate the relative merits of different means of restricting minors' ability to gain access to harmful materials on the internet." The court also wrote that it was five years since the district court had considered the effectiveness of filtering software and that two less-restrictive laws had been passed since COPA, one prohibiting misleading domain names and another creating a child-safe .kids domain, and that given the rapid pace of internet development those might be sufficient to restrict access by minors to specific material. The court referred the case back to the district court for a trial, which began on October 25, 2006.

In preparation for that trial, the Department of Justice issued subpoenas to various search engines to obtain Web addresses and records of searches as one part of a study undertaken by a witness in support of the law. The search engines turned over the requested information, except for Google, which challenged the subpoenas. The court limited the subpoena to a sample of URLs in Google's database, but declined to enforce the request for searches conducted by users; Google then complied.[5][6]

On March 22, 2007, U.S. District Judge Lowell A. Reed, Jr. once again struck down the Child Online Protection Act,[7] finding the law facially in violation of the First and Fifth Amendments of the United States Constitution. In addition to the plaintiffs ACLU et al., several witnesses testified in defense of first amendment rights on the Internet, including the director of the Erotic Authors Association, Marilyn Jaye Lewis.[8] Reed issued an order permanently enjoining the government from enforcing COPA, commenting that "perhaps we do the minors of this country harm if First Amendment protections, which they will with age inherit fully, are chipped away in the name of their protection."[9] The government again appealed, and the case was heard before the Third Circuit.[10]

On July 22, 2008, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the 2007 decision.[11][12]

On January 21, 2009, the United States Supreme Court refused to hear appeals of the lower court decision, effectively shutting down the law.[13][14]

See also[edit]

Notes[edit]

References[edit]

External links[edit]

  1. ^"47 U.S.C. 231". Legal Information Institute. Cornell University Law School. Retrieved July 11, 2006. 
  2. ^COPA is sometimes confused with COPPA, the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, which remains in force and limits the ability of sites to offer services to those aged twelve and under without explicit parental consent.
  3. ^"Ashcroft v. ACLU - The Legal Challenge to the Child Online Protection Act". Electronic Privacy Information Center. Retrieved January 19, 2006. 
  4. ^"Supreme Court of the United States: Ashcroft v. ACLU (2004)". law.cornell.edu. Retrieved March 30, 2006. 
  5. ^"Google blog". 
  6. ^"Ruling on Google subpoena"(PDF). 
  7. ^"US District Court Final Adjudication"(PDF). 
  8. ^"US District Court Transcripts". 
  9. ^"Judge Strikes '98 Law Aimed At Online Porn". Associated Press. Retrieved March 22, 2007. 
  10. ^Lamut, Anna (3 August 2008). "ACLU v. Mukasey; Third Circuit Holds Child Online Protection Act Unconstitutional". Harvard Journal of Law & Technology. Jolt Digest. Archived from the original on 12 July 2012. Retrieved 24 January 2009. 
  11. ^Singel, Ryan (22 July 2008). "Net Censorship Law Struck Down Again". Wired. Retrieved July 22, 2008. 
  12. ^ACLU v. Mukasey, 3rd Cir., 22 July 2008.
  13. ^Sherman, Mark (21 January 2009). "Anti-Porn Online Law Dies Quietly in Supreme Court". AP. Yahoo! News. Archived from the original on January 24, 2009. Retrieved 24 January 2009. 
  14. ^Nichols, Scott (22 January 2009). "COPA Child-Porn Law Killed". PC World. Retrieved 24 January 2009. 

ACT Writing Essay Prompt

The Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) requires all school libraries receiving certain federal funds to install and use blocking software to prevent students from viewing material considered “harmful to minors.” However, some studies conclude that blocking software in schools damages educational opportunities for students, both by blocking access to Web pages that are directly related to the state-mandated curriculums and by restricting broader inquiries of both students and teachers. In your view, should the schools block access to certain Internet websites?

In your essay, take a position on this question. You may write about either one of the two points of view given, or you may present a different point of view on this question. Use specific reasons and examples to support your position.

ACT Writing Essay Sample

The Internet has brought many changes to our world. Computers are used in businesses, homes, and, of course, schools. However, with increased use of computers comes increased dangers. A new law, the Children’s Internet Protection Act, requires schools to use blocking programs to restrict students’ Internet access. Although some parents, students, and teachers believe that this law is a bad one, the dangers from the Internet make it clear that schools should block student access to certain Internet sites.

Some people believe that it is wrong for schools to restrict access to certain Internet sites. These people think that restricting access is the same thing as censorship. However, this argument is incorrect. The school is not trying to control what students think or write. It is only trying to control what sort of things a student can or cannot do at a school computer. This is well within the rights of the school. After all, schools can impose dress codes and dictate what classes students can take. It doesn’t make sense to say that a school can determine what books a student reads or what clothes he or she wears, but cannot restrict access to certain Internet sites. Thus, this argument is not convincing.

One convincing reason that schools should block access to certain Internet sites is that the Internet contains many offensive or objectionable sites. For example, there are sites on the Internet that contain racist and sexist jokes and content. Other sites might display material that is inappropriate for children. Because there is no censorship, there is no telling what sites a student can visit. This sort of material has no place in a school. If students see violent or offensive sites, they might be influenced. They could insult or hurt other students. For this reason, it is a good idea for schools to block access to certain sites.

Another good reason to restrict student access to the Internet is the presence of dangerous computer viruses, spyware, and other harmful computer programs. These programs can infect a computer via the Internet and affect the hardware of the system and all the computers that are attached to it. A student who visits certain restricted sites puts the entire computer network at risk. One infected computer can wipe out or ruin all the other computers in the school. Thus, it would be a very wise move for schools to restrict access to certain dangerous Internet sites.

As this essay has shown, it is important and necessary for schools to block student access to certain Internet sites. Although some people think restricting sites is censorship, the Internet has many potential dangers for a student, from objectionable sites to harmful computer viruses and bugs. A school that doesn’t restrict access to the Internet puts itself at risk for far more serious issues.

More Information

0 comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *