Talk:Child Online Protection Act

Why Does COPA Only Apply to Pornography?

Why does this apply to pornography, and not to gore and/or otherwise violent and desturbing material? It seems quite ridiculous to me...

American priorities are rather wacky. Ashibaka tock 03:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Answer

Actually, it doesn't just apply to pornography... if you read the statute, you will not find the word "pornography" anywhere in its content. The exact phrase is "material harmful to minors." The question now, however, is to decide what constitutes "material harmful to minors". Pornography certainly applies, but I believe that extremely violent portrayals should also apply. I, as you, would hope that we would stop equating COPA to porn and apply it to anything inappropriate for minors.

Now, how do we define that? Well, it shouldn't be too difficult. We already have ratings systems for movies, television, and video games. The techniques applied by the governing bodies of those materials should also be applied to rating internet sites. The problem, however, is that nobody could possibly rate every site that pops up on the web. However, should a potential offender be identifed, then the governing body should hear the case against the offender, decide whether the site is indeed "harmful to minors" and serve a sufficient notice for the individual to comply with the law. If he still fails to comply, then he should be held accountable in a court of law. Mll1013 20:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

---

lol.. or parents could watch there kids so that they don't access "harmful" sites instead of dumbing down the internet for all people.. If parents are so concerned that kids might see porn or violence.. they should take an active responsibility in limiting access or voluntarily install filtering software. the government should stay out of it and stop trying to regulate everything. the internet is not the micky mouse kids club.. the government needs to get over it and move on. the supreme court has spoken on these issues many many times. countries like ones in europe for instance do not have hang ups about naturally occuring thing called nudity and sex.. and it funny but all of europe are not sexual deviants.. go figure. actually regulating nudity or sex just leads to making it a taboo and people growing up thinking there is something inherintly wrong with it, then self guilt and so on and so on and so on. no one should push adult material on kids of course but contemporary community standards is a joke. whats ok in california may not be ok in georgia etc.. its just dumb. parents.. watch your kids. -Tracer9999 01:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Applicability to Wikipedia

To what degree (if any) does this apply to Wikipedia? (This may not be the right place to ask, but I don't know where else). AFAIK, Wikipedia does not ask for a birthdate, and it does contain information that might fall under the descriptions included. Does anyone know? -- BlindVenetian 11:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't, because it doesn't apply to anyone anymore. Hoorah! Kuronue 01:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protect?

This page has gone through a lot of vandalism recently. What does everyone else think? Is it maybe time to request semi-protection? 69.19.14.31 (talk) 20:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Continued Legality

The law was held unconstitutional in the third circuit. The S.Ct simply failed to hear the appeal, which has no legal effect. The law is still valid in all the other circuits.

71.237.90.173 (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Child Online Protection Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090124180944/http://news.yahoo.com:80/s/ap/20090121/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_internet_blocking to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090121/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_internet_blocking

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Child Online Protection Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20120712130258/http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/uncategorized/aclu-v-mukasey to http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/uncategorized/aclu-v-mukasey

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:40, 4 August 2017 (UTC)