|
"The Communications Decency Act (CDA) was signed by U.S.A. President Bill Clinton in 1996. It was Congress' first attempt to regulate online pornography and made it a felony offense under U.S.A. law "to use the Internet for display or transmission of indecent material that could be seen by a minor. . .. The American Civil Liberties Union and American Library Association sued to block the CDA. A three-judge federal panel in Philadelphia said the law undermined free speech rights and ruled it unconstitutional. In 1997 the Supreme Court upheld that decision.
Congress tried again in 1998 to limit Internet pornography with the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), a law that prevented minors from accessing adult web sites by requiring commercial site operators to impose electronic proof-of-age barriers. Violators would face up to six months in prison and a $50,000 fine. Again the ACLU, this time accompanied by 17 other plaintiffs, challenged the law and in June 2000 the 3rd U.S. Court of Appeals in Philadelphia upheld a lower court ruling that COPA violated the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech." [1] "Because of the peculiar geography-free nature of cyberspace, [COPA's] community standards test would essentially require every web communication to abide by the most restrictive community's standards."[2]
"In late February, 2001, the Department of Justice filed a petition for certiorari asking the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the decision of the Third Circuit.
The Supreme Court on May 13, 2002, issued a decision to maintain the ban on COPA enforcement. The Court did not decide any of the core legal questions, but ordered a lower court to decide the case on a wider range of First Amendment issues.
In a decision issued on March 6, 2003, The Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled for a second time that the COPA is unconstitutional. 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.
In a decision issued June 29, 2004, Supreme Court upheld a lower court injunction against enforcement of the Child Online Protection Act (COPA). The Court found that the government has not shown that there are no "less restrictive alternatives" to COPA, and that "there is a potential for extraordinary harm and a serious chill upon protected speech" if the law goes into effect.[2]
------------------------------
Editor: Karene Jade Howie
|