The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected the government’s appeal over the Child Online Protection Act, supporting the six-month old decision by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia according to which the COPA law is unconstitutional.

 

The battle over the Child Online Protection Act has been going on for over a decade now, but it has never been enforced, and it has been rejected as unconstitutional on multiple occasions. The law would basically require U.S. commercial sites to stop offering material harmful to minors defined by contemporary community standards.

 

COPA defined the materials harmful to minors as any communication, picture, image, graphic image file, article, recording, writing, or other material of any kind that is obscene or that: an average person would find to pander to prurient interest; depicts in a manner patently offensive with respect to minors an actual or simulated perverted or normal sexual act, or a lewd exhibition of the genitals or post-pubescent female breast; or lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.

 

In 2004, the Supreme Court banned the enforcement of the law, sending it back to the District Court for updates on the factual record, to reflect current technological realities. In March 2007, the court’s decision struck down COPA once more.

 

The government repeatedly appealed the decision, which would have meant fines of up to $50,000 or imprisonment of up to 6 months. In addition to that, the law also stated that each day of violation would constitute a separate violation, and therefore violators would be punished for each count separately.

 

In July last year, the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia declared COPA to be vague, overly broad, and unconstitutional. Furthermore, the court also found that COPA criminalizes a category of speech constitutionally protected for adults, while at the same time it fails to be the least restrictive alternative, and it breaks First Amendment rights.

 

The American Civil Liberties Union called the latest decision by the U.S. Supreme Court a clear victory for free speech. Chris Hansen, senior staff attorney for the ACLU and counsel for the case, said in a statement that for over a decade, the government has been trying to thwart freedom of speech on the Internet, but it is not the role of the government to decide what people can see and do on the Internet.

 

Furthermore, Steven R. Saphiro, Legal Director of ACLU, said in his statement that the court’s decision not to review the law for a third time reflects the idea they’ve been supporting all along, that the government has no right to censor protected speech on the Internet, and it cannot reduce adults to hearing and seeing only speech that government considers suitable for children.