Child Online Protection Act
Encyclopedia
The Child Online Protection Act (COPA) 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
.
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.
On June 29, 2004, in Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union
(ACLU), 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.
On March 22, 2007, U.S. District Judge Lowell A. Reed, Jr. once again struck down the Child Online Protection Act, 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
. 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." The government again appealed, and the case was heard before the Third Circuit.
On July 22, 2008, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the 2007 decision.
On January 21, 2009, the United States Supreme Court refused to hear appeals of the lower court decision, effectively killing the bill.
United States
The United States of America is a federal constitutional republic comprising fifty states and a federal district...
, passed in 1998 with the declared purpose of restricting access by minors to any material defined as harmful to such minors on the Internet
Internet
The Internet is a global system of interconnected computer networks that use the standard Internet protocol suite to serve billions of users worldwide...
. 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
Internet pornography
Internet pornography is pornography that is distributed by means of various sectors of the Internet, primarily via websites, peer-to-peer file sharing, or Usenet newsgroups...
. Parts of the earlier and much broader Communications Decency Act
Communications Decency Act
The Communications Decency Act of 1996 was the first notable attempt by the United States Congress to regulate pornographic material on the Internet. In 1997, in the landmark cyberlaw case of Reno v. ACLU, the United States Supreme Court struck the anti-indecency provisions of the Act.The Act was...
had been struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1997 (Reno v. ACLU
Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union
Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, , is a United States Supreme Court case, in which all nine Justices of the Court voted to strike down anti-indecency provisions of the Communications Decency Act , finding they violated the freedom of speech provisions of the First Amendment. Two Justices...
); 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
Nudity
Nudity is the state of wearing no clothing. The wearing of clothing is exclusively a human characteristic. The amount of clothing worn depends on functional considerations and social considerations...
(including female breasts). This is a much broader standard than obscenity
Obscenity
An obscenity is any statement or act which strongly offends the prevalent morality of the time, is a profanity, or is otherwise taboo, indecent, abhorrent, or disgusting, or is especially inauspicious...
.
Litigation history
The federal government was enjoined from enforcing COPA by a court order in 1998. In 1999, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third CircuitUnited States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit is a federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the district courts for the following districts:* District of Delaware* District of New Jersey...
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.
On June 29, 2004, in Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union
American Civil Liberties Union
The American Civil Liberties Union is a U.S. non-profit organization whose stated mission is "to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States." It works through litigation, legislation, and...
(ACLU), 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
Google
Google Inc. is an American multinational public corporation invested in Internet search, cloud computing, and advertising technologies. Google hosts and develops a number of Internet-based services and products, and generates profit primarily from advertising through its AdWords program...
, 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.
On March 22, 2007, U.S. District Judge Lowell A. Reed, Jr. once again struck down the Child Online Protection Act, 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
Marilyn Jaye Lewis
Marilyn Jaye Lewis is an American writer and editor of erotic short stories and novels.-Early career as a singer-songwriter:Lewis studied recording and audio engineering in New York City, after moving there from her home town of Columbus, Ohio in 1980...
. 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." The government again appealed, and the case was heard before the Third Circuit.
On July 22, 2008, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the 2007 decision.
On January 21, 2009, the United States Supreme Court refused to hear appeals of the lower court decision, effectively killing the bill.
See also
- Communications Decency ActCommunications Decency ActThe Communications Decency Act of 1996 was the first notable attempt by the United States Congress to regulate pornographic material on the Internet. In 1997, in the landmark cyberlaw case of Reno v. ACLU, the United States Supreme Court struck the anti-indecency provisions of the Act.The Act was...
- Help:Sexual content
- Internet pornographyInternet pornographyInternet pornography is pornography that is distributed by means of various sectors of the Internet, primarily via websites, peer-to-peer file sharing, or Usenet newsgroups...
- List of legal topics
- List of United States Supreme Court cases
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 542
External links
- COPA Commission
- [/ Child Online Protection Act, Truth in Domain Names Act, Federal TradeMark Dilution Act and U.S. Supreme Court Case 05-718]
- Cybertelecom :: COPA