May 29, 2002


sfbg.com

 

Extra

Andrea Nemerson's
alt.sex.column

Norman Solomon's
MediaBeat

nessie's
The nessie files

Tom Tomorrow's
This Modern World

Jerry Dolezal
Cartoon


News

PG&E and the California energy crisis

Arts and Entertainment

Venue Guide

Electric Habitat
By Amanda Nowinski

Tiger on beat
By Patrick Macias

Frequencies
By Josh Kun


Calendar

Submit your listing

Culture

Techsploitation
By Annalee Newitz

Without Reservations
By Paul Reidinger

Cheap Eats
By Dan Leone

 

Our Masthead

Editorial Staff

Business Staff

Jobs & Internships


PERSONALS | MOVIE CLOCK | REP CLOCK | SEARCH

Thought police to the rescue

Ashcroft introduces new, draconian online censorship plan

By Annalee Newitz

Although the Supreme Court has ruled against enforcing two broad Internet-censorship legislation packages over the past several weeks, Attorney General John Ashcroft and his acolytes are already preparing new legislation that, if passed, would make it a criminal offense to distribute adult materials in which the people depicted appear "virtually indistinguishable from" children. The new legislation, dubbed the Child Obscenity and Pornography Prevention Act of 2002 (COPPA), is a modified version of the 1996 Child Pornography Prevention Act (CPPA), which was ruled unconstitutionally vague by the Supreme Court in April.

The new COPPA package is part of Ashcroft's latest attack on First Amendment rights online. Like the 1998 Child Online Protection Act (COPA) and the CPPA before it, COPPA uses the alleged welfare of children as an excuse to censor adult content. Like the defeated CPPA, COPPA is not about protecting the lives of children who might be harmed in the making of pornography. Instead it aims to stamp out images or pictures that depict people who merely look like minors. In this way COPPA is essentially intended to weed out thought crimes rather than real crimes against children. For the Ashcroft anti-pornsters, hope springs eternal that one day all naughty images will be censored. As COPPA was launched, Rep. Mark Foley (R-Florida) said, "I hope this legislation meets the standard set by the Supreme Court."

The scary thing is, it just might. Despite its pro-free speech ruling on the CPPA, on May 13 the court refused to rule on COPA, a sweeping legislation package that would make it a federal crime to display content that is "harmful to minors" on the Internet "for commercial purposes." Instead the Supreme Court sent the case back to a lower court to be decided. In the meantime, much to the relief of First Amendment activists, the Supreme Court has placed a ban on enforcing COPA, which would criminalize not only adult sites but also breast cancer sites, health education sites, and even a gay newspaper.

Unanswered in all these debates is a simple question: is viewing pornography really harmful to minors? None of the court documents or legislation cite studies that demonstrate children are "harmed" by viewing sexual images. But this shouldn't be any surprise. Once again, Ashcroft and his buddies are merely using children as pawns in a war against free expression among consenting adults. Now that's what I call child exploitation.

E-mail Annalee Newitz at annalee@techsploitation.com.