Earlier today a ruling was announced in the case of ACLU vs. Alberto R Gonzales in his official capacity: as Attorney General of the United States. This case has in the courts since shortly after the passage of the Child Online Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 231 (“COPA”) in 1998. In this post I want to discuss the ruling and my distaste for the opinions of a vocal few of my fellow Christians. But first, some background.
COPA was passed with the intent of protecting children from online pornography. Which sounds like a reasonable mission. However, the way the law was written severely limited the rights of those who create the pornography. For many, this was acceptable. Many family and Christian organizations crusaded for this law to pass, for they are inherently against pornography anyway, so the loss of personal liberties of the pornographers was not a concern. So here we have a person’s right to create the sort of Internet content that he wants being pitted against society’s responsibility to protect its young. But what Congress and their supporters didn’t ask themselves was, “Can we do this without infringing upon other peoples rights?” or “How effective will this US law be, considering the fact that the Internet is world wide?” Unfortunately for the supporters of this law, it was those very questions that the judge in the case did ask. And, because of the answers to those questions, Judge Lowell Reed felt it necessary to strike down COPA.
From the first page of Judge Reed’s 80+ page ruling:
I conclude today that OPA facially violates the First and Fifth Amendment rights of the plaintiffs because: (1) at
least some of the plaintiffs have standing; (2) COPA is not narrowly tailored to Congress’ compelling interest; (3) defendant has failed to meet his burden of showing that COPA is the least restrictive, most effective alternative in achieving the compelling interest; and (3) COPA is impermissibly vague and overbroad. As a result, I will issue a permanent injunction against the enforcement of COPA. [editor's note: the typo of two #3s was in the copy I received, don't blame me]
Basically, what Judge Reed goes on to say is that there’s a better way to accomplish the goal of protecting children. It’s called a filter. A filter will do a better job of protecting the children (on the fly no less) from sites no matter where in the world they’re hosted (thus no worries about jurisdiction).
Of course Focus on the Family, a conservative Christian group that I tend to agree with… normally, has an article up about this court decision. At the top of the article it shows a picture of a roaring lion with a picture of a family shrunk down and superimposed on the lion photo, as if to say that this action by the court will cause us to be devoured. Seems like a bit of a scare tactic. It goes without saying that this group belongs in the camp of those who couldn’t care less about the civil rights of the people who publish pornography. In their take on the article they quote Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for Focus on the Family Action, as saying:
“The court can’t push Congress’ duties to protect kids from commercial pornographers back onto the parents simply by pointing out the filters are somewhat effective at blocking harmful content?
To this I reply, yes they can Bruce. And they should, and they just did. It’s not the government’s job to raise my kids. It’s mine. It doesn’t take a village, it takes a good parent. In addition to that, filters are more that just ‘somewhat’ effective. Bruce goes on to say:
“Should Congress abandon its ‘compelling interest’ in this area merely because parents have some responsibility there as well? And how do filters protect minors when they are outside the home — are parents supposed to follow their kids around all day?”
And again I say, yes Congress should back off. And parents don’t have ‘some’ responsibility. They have all of the responsibility. God didn’t stamp my children, “in the US government I trust.” I’ll watch my own children, and I don’t need nor want the government’s help in doing so.
The CitizenLink article also quotes Daniel Weiss (no relation) as saying, “I think this judge is starting to make clear no law is going to be good enough for these courts,” he lamented. To me, that’s great! I don’t think the courts or Congress should be telling me how to raise my children. Furthermore, I don’t think the US Government has ANY business trying to regulate the Internet. Did they originally fund the invention of it? Yes, but then they turned it over to the world. It’s not theirs anymore and they should, in my humble opinion, take their hands off of it.
In closing, the words of Whym Rhymer come to mind: “COPA was another attempt by the government to define our society and that, ladies and gentlemen, is something that is way beyond any power that was granted to the Federal government by our Constitution.”
So, what do YOU think? Please, leave me your comments and opinions on this.
