At the COPA, COPA Court Banners...

Julian Sanchez | June 29, 2004

The Supremes again affirm that the Child Online Protection Act, bastard stepchild of the widely reviled Communications Decency Act, offends the First Amendment. The majority cited improving filtering technologies in support of its argument that banning material "harmful to minors" was not the least restrictive method of preventing minors from accessing content that is legal for adults to view. What I'd really like to see is a bit of judicial scrutiny of the dubious notion that there's some intrinsic harm to kids who see the beast with two backs get made, but we take what we can get. Full opinion here.

Comments

Xrlq|6.29.04 @ 1:21AM|#

One wonders what the court would do if the federal government passed a law banning kids from viewing porno within 60 days of an election.

|6.29.04 @ 1:36AM|#

Xrlq, does that include leftist porn like "Fahrenheit 9/11"? ;)

Warren|6.29.04 @ 2:55AM|#

Dear SCOTUS,
Thank you for not trampling my Constitutional rights today.

Warren

The Lonewacko Blog|6.29.04 @ 3:02AM|#

Personally, I have no problem with children as young as five seeing porn up to and including BOMB (Big On Midget Bondage). I believe the next Libertarian Party platform will include their position on the viewing of ATM or DAP. Until then, keep those cards and letters coming.

|6.29.04 @ 3:03AM|#

Finally, a common sense decision that will let libertarians sleep a tad bit easier.

|6.29.04 @ 3:24AM|#

The justices basically punted... again. They didn't issue a decision on the law itself, they just tossed it back for further review. If they used the same spine they displayed in ACLU Vs. Reno and just shot down the law, they would have closed this matter once and for all. Now they have to come back to it at a different date.

They didn't do anyone a favor with this ruling.

|6.29.04 @ 3:44AM|#

"No one denies that such an interest is 'compelling.'"

I deny it. I think that we should be raising children with healthy, positive, and enthusiastic attitude toward sexuality rather than filling their heads full of neurotic, religious bullshit about sex being "sinful." Why should the government step in and tell them otherwise?

Amy Phillips|6.29.04 @ 3:51AM|#

Personally, I think that viewing porn should be mandatory for children, because then by the time they were old enough to actually do it, they'll all know how, and there'd be less bad sex out there. :-)

In all seriousness, the idea that children shouldn't be exposed to naked bodies or sexualized images is a uniquely American worry. Europeans (with their lower rates of STDs and teen pregnancy) laugh at us. As for violent porn or other sexual imagery that may be legitimately objectionable to parents of young children, if parents are having trouble keeping their 13 year olds from watching rape movies, the problem isn't too little legislation, it's too little parental supervision.

Neil Block|6.29.04 @ 5:06AM|#

Unfortunately, for many, legislation and parental supervision are one in the same.

|6.29.04 @ 5:59AM|#

"Unfortunately, for many, legislation and parental supervision are one in the same."

I can hear it now: "We're far to busy working to provide for our children's future to supervise them!" Not to sound like a crass jerk, but if you can't find the time actually take care of children you create, then perhaps you shouldn't have them. That's what condoms and birth control pills are for.

Kirsten|6.29.04 @ 6:03AM|#

Well, I haven't read the post yet, but that headline is one of the best I've seen...

|6.29.04 @ 8:36AM|#

now, how did this same court find campaign finance reform (essentially limiting political speech) to be constitutional?

I would think First Amendment would be more concerned about political speech than porn

tom wright|6.29.04 @ 12:36PM|#

Kids see and imitate.
I would rather my kids see porn and catch them making life with the neighbor, than have them see 'Kill Bill' and catch them taking the life of the neighbor.

Tom

Pete Guither|6.29.04 @ 12:39PM|#

Unfortunately, the Supremes feel that they have scrutinized the "dubious notion that there's some intrinsic harm to kids who see the beast with two backs get made."

As Breyer said in his dissent:

"I turn next to the question of 'compelling interest,' that of protecting minors from exposure to commercial pornography. No one denies that such an interest is 'compelling.'"

That's the Supreme Court view. I'm also worried that this slipped through the Supremes on the narrowest of margins and only with a "send-back," not an outright rejection. Scalia's dissent is expected (there is no such thing as a first amendment right to anything having to do with sex). But Breyer's dissent, joined by O'Connor and the Chief Justice, is a bit bizarre and scary -- he thinks COPA is reasonable, and that the "harmful to minors" provision doesn't have a vagueness problem.

This is going to come back again.

drf|6.29.04 @ 12:41PM|#

tom,

you forget that bob dole (bobdole bobdole) noted back in 1996 that kids can tell the difference between movie "cartoon" violence and sex. which just confuses them. it's like the threat iraq posed. it's just something that "every intelligent person knows".

actually, he's right: the famous "L-shaped blanket" is confusing. you know, it goes up to her chin, while it only goes up to his waist. where do they shop???? bed bath and beyond doesn't have that stuff. maybe sharper image?

please advise!
drf

|6.30.04 @ 1:12AM|#

To suggest that sexuality is simply a black or white dichotomy�religious prudishness or porn (either or) ignores the fact that reality is quite nuanced. I�m neither religious nor sexually neurotic but I�m certainly not planning to dial up barelylegalteens.com as an illustrated companion for my seven-year-old�s birds-and-the-bees lessons.

I would also suggest that despite some of the cavalier comments about porn and kids that each of us has some limit beyond which we would not expose our own children. For some it might be the simple act of making love, for others maybe the exchange of bodily fluids, chicks doing donkeys might cross the line, but for most of us I would say it is safe to assume that the image of your twelve-year-old son masturbating while watching some guy take a dump in a chick�s mouth might be a little much (Oh, no, we didn�t mean THAT kind of porn, which is exactly my point).

I agree that the Supremes erred in the decision. I agree that adults shouldn�t be constrained for the �sake of the children� and further; the idea that teenagers are children is also absurd. I agree that parents should be in charge, which most of you guys agree with so long as those parents aren�t Jehovah Witnesses or Christ Scientists.

Oh, and Tom, that whole �rather have my kids watch people have sex than watch people pretend to die on screen because then the kid will go Columbine on the neighbors� is so discredited. And it is just another black or white dichotomy that ignores reality.

And lastly, the most screwed up kids I ever ran across were the kids whose parents forced them to watch them screw from the day their eyes opened because �it�s beautiful�.

|6.30.04 @ 2:10AM|#

"No one denies that such an interest is 'compelling.'"

He must not get out much.

|6.30.04 @ 7:15AM|#

I snipped this from a related article:

"Justice Department (news - web sites) spokesman Mark Corallo denounced the ruling.

'Our society has reached a broad consensus that child obscenity is harmful to our youngest generation and must be stopped," Corallo said. "Congress has repeatedly attempted to address this serious need and the court yet again opposed these commonsense measures to protect America's children.'"

Okay, can someone tell me what the fuck is "child obscenity"? This couldn't possibly be yet another government nanny talking out of his ass.

|6.30.04 @ 9:16AM|#

"Content-based prohibitions, enforced by severe criminal penalties, have the constant potential to be a repressive force in the lives and thoughts of a free people,"

Justice Anthony Kennedy

And he didn't even follow it up with Yee-hawww!

Larry A|6.30.04 @ 10:46AM|#

{No one denies that such an interest is 'compelling.'}

Well, of course it is. Everyone knows that sex should only happen within heterosexual marriage, in the marital bed, behind closed doors and locked windows.

I believe that the �compelling� theory (Just Say No) says that between the time kids go through puberty (about 12 years old), to the time they get married (After college, about 22 to 25 years old) they:

1. Shouldn�t have any sexual contact with a person of the opposite sex. (Anything beyond kissing with the mouth closed.)
2. Shouldn�t in any way pleasure themselves. (Masturbate.)
3. Shouldn�t see any pictures, videos, statues, cartoons, etc. depicting 1 or 2.
4. Shouldn�t hear any audio recording of 1 or 2.
5. Shouldn�t read any stories involving 1 or 2.

Then, after saying no for a decade or so, they should take a PG rated �sexuality� course and have fulfilling and fruitful marital relations. They should never never ever ever do anything naughty with a member of the same sex, and should never never ever ever read about, watch, or listen to people �doing it.� And they should always �do it� the right way; none of that degenerate stuff like with the woman on top.

What they seem to forget is that my parents were the first generation where people could actually go into their bedroom and shut the doors and windows. Before air conditioning kids could hear anything that happened. And for much of world history there weren�t even many folks who had bedrooms. In Biblical times, most Israelite families lived in one-room buildings or tents, and spent the summer sleeping outside or on the roof to get away from the heat.

Not to speak of the fact that most people lived on a farm or ranch, and got graphic sex education lessons as soon as they could see over the bottom rail of the fence. I remember my grandparents in dinner table conversations about how they needed a new rooster or they were going to run out of eggs. And everyone at the table could put one and one together and understand why.

|7.1.04 @ 7:30AM|#

"Well, of course it is. Everyone knows that sex should only happen within heterosexual marriage, in the marital bed, behind closed doors and locked windows."

You already mentioned that it should be missionary position only. But let Me add that the lights also need to be OUT, the participants be clothed (the woman should barely hike up her housecoat), no one is to make any noises whatsoever, and, above all, this should be done ONLY to make children.

Sex is a dirty, ugly, disgusting thing. I only make is pleasurable to test your faith. Toucheth not yourself, lest ye fall down into the burning pit of fire. Down, down, down, and the flames will raise higher. Burn, burn, burn.. pit of fire. Pit of fire.

|7.1.04 @ 10:49AM|#

Well someone tell Pat Robertson to stop impersonating me? I keep telling him to stop speaking for me but he doesn't listen to what I tell him.