COPA-U-Later

In comments, Basharov makes the important point that we should be grateful Clarence Thomas was on the side of angels in Asscrack v. ACLU, even if only out of self-abuseinterest.

The Child Online Protection Act (COPA) provides for a 50K fine for posting "material that is harmful to minors" for commercial purposes on the 'net. Material harmful to minors is defined as:

"any communication, picture, image, graphic image file, article, recording, writing, or other matter of any kind that is obscene or that--

"(A) the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find, taking the material as a whole and with respect to minors, is designed to appeal to, or is designed to pander to, the prurient interest;

"(B) depicts, describes, or represents, in a manner patently offensive with respect to minors, an actual or simulated sexual act or sexual contact, an actual or simulated normal or perverted sexual act, or a lewd exhibition of the genitals or post-pubescent female breast; and

"(C) taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors."

Just imagine this law enforced by a dimwitted goon like Michael Powell ... or John Ashcroft. With a vague limitation like "prurient" ("inordinately interested in matters of sex") a nutjob like Powell could find any website in violation of this statute. And applying "contemporary community standards" to the World Wide Web would lead to a group of inbred hillbilly cretins from Bob Barr's former Congressional district milking COPA like a cash cow.

Hell, this site takes an inordinate interest in the actual and simulated perverted sex acts of Republicans, uses the fuck word frequently, and lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors. But for the fact that I don't make any money doing this, I could get hit with a big fine under COPA.

Justice Breyer is completely whacked out on this one. He claims that the Starr Report "[is] not both (1) 'designed to appeal to, or . . . pander to, the prurient interest' of significant groups of minors and (2) lacking in 'serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value' for significant groups of minors." I can't think of anything more aptly characterized as such.