WWW – The U.S. Supreme Court struck down enforcement of the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) on June 29. The 5-4 ruling concluded that the COPA was “likely a violation of freedom of speech.” This decision is not final.

The COPA is a law that declares that a person can be fined up to $50,000 and sentenced to six months in jail for providing children easy access to pornography. It was signed into law in 1998 by President Clinton and is supported by the Bush administration. It requires those distributing porn with the intent of making money to use measures to prevent children from accessing it. Possible measures include requiring a credit card number or an adult personal identification number.

The Supreme Court determined, based on the 1978 case United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc., the burden is on the government to establish that a restriction of freedom of speech is necessary to accomplish its goal. Hence, the government must demonstrate that a less restrictive option would not be as successful at preventing children from viewing porn.

Much of the majority opinion consists of the idea that new technology, namely Internet filters, are a less restrictive and quite possibly more effective way to prevent children from accessing illicit material. It notes that the COPA only will affect businesses in the U.S., meaning that minors will still be able to view porn posted from sites outside the country. This indicates that a filter might be more effective.

The subsequent decision to remand the case to the lower court is questionable. This is already the third time the Supreme Court has heard the case. Whereas, by remanding the case, the government will have the chance to argue that its law is the most effective means of preventing minors from viewing pornographic material, and technology will only improve by the time the case has made another round through the court system. The system takes so long, that by the time the case is heard again, technology will have changed, rendering the arguments invalid once more.

This cycle of lawsuits is costing taxpayers vast sums of money. Rather than continuing an endless string of legal battles, the government should be spending money on new technology. Filters need to be modified, so that they can distinguish educational content from porn. A filter that blocks pictures of the Venus de Milo from minors is harmful, not helpful.

And even if this law is the best means of blocking minors from viewing porn, should adults viewing such material through the Internet have to identify themselves? In their ruling, the Supreme Court has not addressed this crucial issue. It is a violation of individuals’ privacy to have to reveal their identity in order to view material that is legal.

In the wake of the rulings on Guantanamo and the Pledge of Allegiance, it seems that the Supreme Court is dodging the bullet and leaving the country without judicial leadership once again.

This law was passed in 1998 and has never taken effect. The process is slow and laborious. Ashcroft and President Bush need to give up on the act, encouraging Congress to increase funding for research on filtering so that a new law, one that will help prevent minors from viewing porn without infringing on freedom of speech, may be passed.