Still undecided on COPA

The Child Online Protection Act (COPA) has enormous spring to it. It just bounced back to a federal appeals court in Philadelphia from the Supreme Court for the third time, with the US's highest court deciding 5-4 that "a law meant to punish pornographers who peddle dirty pictures to Web-surfing kids is probably an unconstitutional muzzle on free speech," as the Associated Press put it. The justices didn't actually strike down the law; they told the lower court to see if technology (such as filtering) hasn't improved enough since the law was first passed in 1998 to take care of the child-protection problem without a law having to intervene (this will be the third time the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals has considered COPA). The Supreme Court justices know that filtering is flawed, but even more flawed, the majority opinion held, is a law that jeopardizes First Amendment rights. In his dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer said COPA is indeed constitutional and "would be less restrictive than filters and other alternatives," the New York Times reports, quoting Justice Breyer: "That matters in a world where the obscene and the nonobscene do not come tied neatly into separate, easily distinguishable, packages."

It's important for the courts to get the final decision on COPA right, whatever "right" means in this ongoing, unprecedented clash between free speech and children's rights, because it could establish the framework for future regulation of cyberspace. Here's further coverage at CNET, the BBC, and, on earlier COPA milestones, at NetFamilyNews.org. Here is the syllabus of the Supreme Court's decision today.