Designed to protect children from viewing pornographic
and harmful content on the internet, the law imposes restrictions
on what can be seen on the internet.
Allowing the possibility of children seeing material which could
be "harmful to minors" is a criminal act under the law and can by
punished by six-month prison terms and $50,000 fines.
The law has never been used and its constitutionality has been
questioned by courts in the US. The current case is being taken by
the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and will be heard by
Judge Lowell Reed at the Eastern District Court of
Pennsylvania.
The ACLU is arguing that the Act violates the 'first amendment'
rights of users of the internet and publishers. The first amendment
of the US Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of
expression.
"This case is about speech. It is not the role of the government
to decide what people can see and use on the internet. Those are
personal decisions that should be made by individuals and their
families," said Chris Hansen, a staff attorney at the ACLU.
COPA was involved in a court case in Philadelphia but the
federal and appeals courts both said that the law was
unconstitutional and should not be enforced. The Supreme Court
upheld that ban on enforcement in 2004.
The ACLU will argue in the case that individual screening
software in the home is sufficient to block unsuitable material,
and that parental supervision must take the place of state
interference. "As a parent, I know that what's fine for my daughter
may not be appropriate even for some of her friends," said
Salon.com editor in chief Joan Walsh in testimony to the court this
week.
The Government has said that it will argue that the screening
technology is not adequate to protect children. "The evidence will
show that a shocking amount of pornography slips through to
children," said Eric Beane, a government attorney, in court.
The non-jury trial is expected to last for four weeks.
