
	Where results make sense

Topic: Child Online Protection Act

Related Topics

Internet child pornography

Internet pornography

Communications Decency Act

Child pornography

Thumbnail gallery post

Pornography

Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal

Miller test

Gay pornographic magazines

Erotica

De jure

Bomis

1906 San Francisco earthquake

Clear and present danger

BMX XXX

In the News (Mon 28 Dec 09)

Northern Trust

Marvin Harrison

Peter Chernin

Gary Locke

Match Play

Penelope Cruz

Mickey Rourke

AR Rahman

Danny Boyle

Hugh Jackman

	ACLU v. Reno II -- Challenge to Internet Censorship
		In a decision (pdf) issued on March 6, 2003, the court found that the law violates the First Amendment because it improperly restricts access to a substantial amount of online speech that is lawful for adults.
		The case has to do with a law passed by Congress in 1998 called the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), a broad censorship law that severely restricts any speech on the Web that is "harmful to minors," and imposes steep fines and prison terms for violators.
		In April EPIC joined with the ACLU and EFF in a brief opposing certiorari that asked the U.S. Supreme Court not to disturb the decision of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals that found the Child Online Protection Act to be unconstitutional.
	www.epic.org /free_speech/copa (944 words)

	Child Online Protection Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
		Parts of the earlier and much broader Communications Decency Act had been struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court; COPA was a direct response to that decision, narrowing the range of material covered.
		In 1999, the hot naked women performing sex acts upon each other 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.
		Notably, the court mentioned that "filtering’s superiority to COPA is confirmed by the explicit nipples 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".
	en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Child_Online_Protection_Act (584 words)

	Children's Online Privacy Protection Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
		The act, effective April 21, 2000, applies to the online collection of personal information by persons or entities under U.S. jurisdiction from children under 13 years of age.
		It details what a website operator must include in a privacy policy, when and how to seek verifiable consent from a parent or guardian, and what responsibilities an operator has to protect children's privacy and safety online including restrictions on the marketing to those under 13.
		^ COPPA is sometimes confused with COPA, the Child Online Protection Act, which concerns the exposure of children to online pornography and which was declared unconstitutional and remains under injunction.
	en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Children's_Online_Privacy_Protection_Act (384 words)

	Story: House Passes Child Online Protection Act, 10/7/98.
		The House also passed S 2326, the "Child Online Privacy Protection Act," which requires that website operators and online services that operate websites directed to children obtain parental consent before collecting information from children under the age of thirteen.
		It is known by its number (HR 3783), by its acronym (COPA), by its sponsor (the Oxley bill), by the sponsor of the Senate version (the Coats bill), and also for the law which it replaces (CDA II).
		The Child Online Protection Act passed by the House today is the same version that was adopted by the House Commerce Committee on September 24.
	www.techlawjournal.com /censor/81008.htm (782 words)

	Supreme Court rejects Child Online Protection Act – again \| OUT-LAW.COM
		Passed in 1998, the law known as COPA creates a crime of knowingly placing on-line for commercial purposes any material that is "available to" and deemed harmful to minors.
		The case against COPA's validity began in 1999 when the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), on-line publishers and others argued that because the law bans material that is legal for viewing by adults it is inconsistent with the Constitutional right of free speech.
		In March 2003 the Court of Appeals again struck down the Act, reasoning that COPA is unconstitutional because it is not narrowly tailored to target only pornography.
	www.out-law.com /page-4673-theme=default (883 words)

	Child Online Protection Act revisited by Supreme Court \| OUT-LAW.COM
		The Child Online Protection Act is to be considered by the US Supreme Court for the second time.
		Specifically, the Supreme Court said that COPA applies "contemporary community standards" to determine whether or not material is harmful to children.
		It reasoned that COPA is unconstitutional because it is not narrowly tailored to target only pornography and that legitimate webmasters would be unfairly targeted.
	www.out-law.com /default.aspx?page=3981 (536 words)

	Communications Decency Redux: Child Online Protection Act Enacted, Already Challenged by ACLU
		Anthony Sutin, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Department of Justice, addressed this issue in his October 5 letter to Chairman Billey (Chair of the U.S. House or Representatives Committee on Commerce, which was considering CDA II at that time).
		The constitutionality of the bill would be enhanced if Congress were to identify as the principal compelling interest the facilitation for parents' control over their children's upbringing, in addition to the government's independent interest in keeping certain materials from minors regardless of their parents' views.
		Protecting minors from harmful material on the Internet is and will continue to be a source of contention and debate.
	www.bc.edu /bc_org/avp/law/st_org/iptf/headlines/content/1998103001.html (970 words)

	PC World - Child-Protection Law Debated
		The Child Online Protection Act, passed by Congress in October 1998, was created to narrow ambiguities of the Communication Decency Act, which was quickly struck down in 1997.
		COPA aims to keep "harmful" and "obscene" online material away from children 13 and under, and to penalize those parties who deliver such material.
		One problem with COPA is that the law's language is not narrow enough, argued Ann Beeson, an attorney for the ACLU, one group arguing against COPA's enforcement.
	www.pcworld.com /news/article/0,aid,115088,00.asp (978 words)

	American Civil Liberties Union : Child Online Protection Act - The Law
		Freedom of speech is protected in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights and is guaranteed to all Americans.
		COPA specifically provides that a person shall be considered to make a communication for commercial purposes "only if such person is engaged in the business of making such communication." 47 U.S.C. 231(e)(2)(A).
		COPA provides communicators on the Web for commercial purposes affirmative defenses to prosecution under the statute.
	www.aclu.org /freespeech/internet/27131res20061020.html (621 words)

	COPPA and Copyright Act (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-28)
		The Child Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) was created in 1998 to protect all children under thirteen who use the internet and become victims.
		That is to say, they are victims of online hosts who will use and gather a child’s personal information and publicly display it for means of money.
		Online works should also only be used with good intentions for limited periods of time, and not held on to over an extended amount of time for personal gains or use.
	mason.gmu.edu /~jcollin6/child.html (365 words)

	JURIST - Paper Chase: New caselaw - Child Online Protection Act
		A panel of the Court upheld a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the Child Online Protection Act [text], restricting minors' access to harmful websites.
		COPA is clearly a content-based restriction on speech.
		COPA also fails strict scrutiny because it does not use the least restrictive means to achieve its ends.
	jurist.law.pitt.edu /paperchase/2003/03/new-caselaw-child-online-protection.php (306 words)

	legal redux: Enforcing the Child Online Protection Act
		In 1998, Congress enacted the Child Online Protection Act (COPA)...COPA prohibits the knowing making of a communication by means of the World Wide Web, "for commercial purposes that is available to any minor and that includes material that is harmful to minors," subject to certain affirmative defenses.
		ACLU (2004) which held that that enforcement of COPA should be enjoined because the statute “likely violates” the First Amendment.
		Enforcing the Child Online Protection Act is bound to be difficult.
	ledux.blogspot.com /2006/03/enforcing-child-online-protection-act.html (869 words)

	Bookselling This Week: High Court to Hear Child Online Protection Act Case Again
		The bill, the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), signed into law in 1998, makes it a crime for any commercial Web site to distribute to a minor material considered to be "harmful to minors." It will be the second time in two years that the Supreme Court will hear the case.
		In early March 2003, the Court of Appeals ruled that the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) is unconstitutional.
		The court found that COPA violates adults' right to free speech, is overly broad, and fails "the strict scrutiny test." The Justice Department appealed the court's second ruling to the high court.
	news.bookweb.org /freeexpression/1907.html (214 words)

	Courts Urged to Uphold Child Online Protection Act >By Rachel Chalmers Computergram International - Find Articles
		Sponsors of the Child Online Protection Act of 1998 (COPA) have filed a brief urging the US Courts to enforce the proposed legislation.
		COPA was signed into law by President Clinton last year, but in February, US District Judge Lowell Reed agreed with the ACLU and 17 web publishers that it violates the First Amendment guarantee of free speech.
		As for the freedom of speech issue, the sponsors of the Act urge the courts to uphold COPA within the required constitutional parameters.
	www.findarticles.com /p/articles/mi_m0CGN/is_3707/ai_57242058 (311 words)

	Act Child Protection Safety Website (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-28)
		Protecting our children is one of the most important and challenging tasks in today's world.
		The co pa commission, a Congressional appointed panel, was mandated by the child on line protection act, which was approved by congress in October 1998.
		A 141 year old Roman Catholic child welfare agency will be shut down this summer amid concerns by state officials about child safety and new allegations that the agency's former chief executive was downloading pornography onto a work laptop.
	www.childsafetysource.info /act-child-protection-safety.html (1151 words)

	Sidley Austin \| CyberLaw \| Child Online Protection Act Clears Hurdle in Supreme Court, But Many Questions Remain
		The Child Online Protection Act (“COPA” or “the Act”) embodies Congress’ most recent attempt to restrict on-line access by minors to obscene or pornographic material.
		One part of COPA’s definition of “material that is harmful to minors” turns on whether an “average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find [that the image, article, recording or other material], taking the matter as whole and with respect to minors, is designed to appeal.
		While COPA has survived this first test in the Supreme Court, the test was a limited one that has left many questions unanswered concerning the Act’s constitutionality.
	www.sidley.com /cyberlaw/features/copa.asp (685 words)

	The Body: Supreme Court Blocks Child Online Protection Act; Critics Say Law Could Prevent Access to Sexual Education ...
		The Supreme Court on Tuesday in a 5-4 decision blocked enforcement of the Child Online Protection Act, a 1998 law intended to prevent minors from accessing pornography on the Internet but that critics charge could prevent adults from accessing sexual health information, the Washington Times reports (Seper, Washington Times, 6/30).
		COPA makes it a crime for a commercial location where people under age 17 can gain access to it, unless the site makes a "good-faith effort" to screen out all but adult users.
		The Supreme Court on Tuesday sent the case back to the 3rd District Court in Philadelphia and maintained the injunction preventing enforcement of the law until a judgment is reached in that trial, according to the Washington Post (Lane, Washington Post, 6/30).
	www.thebody.com /kaiser/2004/jun30_04/internet_law.html (1255 words)

	US publishers say Child Online Protection Act should be struck down \| The Register
		A group of US online publishers and a lobby group is taking the Government to court to challenge an eight-year-old law which it says amounts to censorship of the internet.
		Designed to protect children from viewing pornographic and harmful content on the internet, the law imposes restrictions on what can be seen on the internet.
		COPA was involved in a court case in Philadelphia but the federal and appeals courts both said that the law was unconstitutional and should not be enforced.
	www.theregister.com /2006/10/24/copa_strike-down_calls (560 words)

	CHILD ONLINE PROTECTION ACT FACES LEGAL APPEAL - Computer Business Review
		COPA would require commercial web sites to collect a credit card number or other proof of age from internet users before divulging material deemed "harmful to minors." The act made it through Congress in October 1998 as part of a $500bn spending bill.
		They maintain that COPA is the statutory successor to the Communications Decency Act (CDA) which was overturned by the United States Supreme Court in 1997.
		COPA's sponsors, Representatives Tom Bliley, Michael Oxley and James Greenwood and Senator Dan Coats, said: "We expected the ACLU to challenge this law in court.
	www.cbronline.com /article_cg.asp?guid=1B2239C5-1AB9-43E1-8D17-991A1679A020 (349 words)

	Judge Blocks Child Online Protection Act
		A federal district court judge in Philadelphia this week ruled that a preliminary injunction be placed against the government's enforcement of the Child Online Protection Act pending a full trial on the constitutionality of the legislation.
		The essence of Reed's perspective on the act was perhaps most apparent in the court's declaration that "While the public certainly has an interest in protecting its minors, the public interest is not served by the enforcement of an unconstitutional law."
		Since last year, the Online Privacy Alliance has reached out to thousands of executives at hundreds of companies encouraging them to ensure that meaningful privacy policies are posted on their Web sites and that their businesses subscribe to and support online seal programs such as BBBOnline or TRUSTe.
	www.dmnews.com /cms/dm-news/legal-privacy/2947.html (782 words)

	Scott Rosenberg's Links & Comment
		Those of you with long memories will recall the saga of the Child Online Protection Act, once known as "CDA II." "CDA I," an effort to restrict "indecent" communications online, was struck down by the courts as an unconstitutionally broad restriction of free speech on the Net.
		The Child Online Protection Act (COPA) was Congress's attempt to outlaw or restrict porn online by drawing a narrower standard that might pass legal muster.
		The ACLU sued the government, immediately after the bill was signed into law in 1998, on behalf of Salon and a group of other plaintiffs representing a broad swath of online publishing and businesses who felt the new law was also highly problematic.
	blogs.salon.com /0000014/2003/03/07.html (256 words)

	- Court rules against Child Online Protection Act - Internet Business News
		The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday sided with a lower court injunction against a law intended to protect children from sexually explicit material posted online, saying the law is likely unconstitutional because less restrictive ways of shielding children from pornography are available.
		COPA is the third attempt by Congress to protect children from pornography after the Supreme Court struck down two earlier laws, the Communications Decency Act and the Child Pornography Prevention Act.
		COPA defined "material that is harmful to minors" as "any communication, picture, image, graphic image file, article, recording, writing, or other matter of any kind that is obscene" or that an average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find obscene.
	www.thestandard.com /article.php?story=20040629182640925 (814 words)

	AdultFYI - Child Online Protection Act (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-28)
		WWW- The Child Online Protection Act (COPA)[1] is a law in the United States of America, passed in 1998 with the declared purpose of protecting children from harmful sexual material on the internet.
		In 1999, the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals 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.
		Notably, the court mentioned that "filteringâ€™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".
	www.adultfyi.com /read.aspx?ID=14108 (408 words)

	CDT \| Child Online Protection Act (COPA)
		The Child Online Protection Act makes it a crime for anyone, by means of the World Wide Web, to make any communication for commercial purposes that is "harmful to minors" unless the person has restricted access by minors by requiring a credit card number.
		COPA places unconstitutional burdens on a wide category of protected speech, while failing to achieve its goal of protecting children.
		Ostensibly aimed at protecting kids from "harmful" material, the law would have led to severe restrictions on a wide range of legal, socially valuable speech, including content relating to sexual identity, health and art.
	www.cdt.org /speech/copa (648 words)

	Child Online Protection Act (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-28)
		COPA was originally introduced by Rep. Mike Oxley (R-OH).
		COPA states that any person who, via the World Wide Web, knowingly makes any communication for commercial purposes to a minor of material that is harmful to minors shall be fined up to $50,000, imprisoned for up to 6 months, or both.
		By utilizing a national standard, COPA requires all communities to conform to the standards of the most conservative communities.
	www.cohnmarks.com /WhatsNews/COPA.htm (368 words)

	THE CHILD ONLINE PROTECTION ACT OF 1998
		The Child Online Protection Act of 1998, also known informally as the “Son of CDA” or as “CDA II” (referring to the Communications Decency Act of 1996, ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1997), creates a criminal and a civil offense for any for-profit (or possibly any commercial) entity of person that places
		ACLU that the Communications Decency Act was an unconstitutional restriction on free speech.
		ACLU, (No. 00-1293), the ACLU argues that the online protection act targets a wide range of speech on the Internet that is valuable for adults but may be considered "harmful to minors" by some communities, with penalties of up to $150,000 for each day of violation and up to six months in prison.
	members.aol.com /JBOUSHKA/colpa.htm (806 words)

Try your search on: Qwika (all wikis)