The Child Pornography Prevention Act

The most powerful analogy in the text is the comparison of women and pornography shops to concentration camps and nazis. This analogy demonstrates how some individuals view the severity of the need for First Amendment censorship, but also brings to mind that the Nazi march through concentration camps was not censored, despite its far more violent nature in comparison to the existence pornography (17). This analogy is an effective way to help the reader understand how some individuals feel about pornography, and why they believe it should be censored. That being said, it does not help prove the point of those individuals, but rather is used to help develop Jacoby’s argument that the First Amendment is all inclusive, regardless of personal opinion. Jacoby has two specific uses of statistics within the text. The first, less influential statistic is the price of a magazine on page 18. The second, more notable statistic is when she mentions the age range of children viewing movies containing adult content in theaters (19). The age of the children in box-office lines helps paint a picture for the reader and better establishes a mental visualization of what is happening in the scene. This is an effective use of statistics, and it also ties into imagery. Incorporating two separate rhetorical terms into one coherent

The Sex Offender Act 1997 stated that people who have been convicted of a Sexual offence must register their address with police and may be served with an order preventing them from going near places where children are.

Sally Mann’s child photography should not be censored due to other people’s views or distaste for her child photography. She has the right to express her love for her children and herself through the arts. As a mother, she experienced a significant amount of backlash which is a common narrative in current society. By censoring her form of expression of her kids, we are restricting the mother’s right over her children. As a matter of fact, a large negative criticism of Sally Mann’s photos is that many consider her child photography to be obscene when in fact it is not obscene. According to a court case called Miller vs. California, art is only considered obscene if it meets all of the following criteria: 1) the average person finds the art lustful with prurient interest, 2) the art is offensive and displays any sexual conduct that is defined by the state law, and 3) the art lacks artistic, literary, political, or scientific value. Sally Mann’s child photography does not meet the criteria since the average person does not find her work to be salacious, the art displays no sexual conduct or penetration in any form, and her work lacks no artistic value. In fact, her art displayed a significant amount of artistic value due to the controversy and her way of challenging the hegemonic ideals of society. Thus, her work should not be censored because it is not considered obscene in the state law.

45% of teens have lied about their age to get a social media account. Children's Online Privacy Protection Act or COPPA, is the restrictions that keep minors under 13 from getting an email, social media, and other accounts. Censorship is the exclusion or withholding of information, so COPPA is technically censorship, because it limits and withholds information from sites and children. COPPA limits the information that sites can collect from children under 13 , and has successfully limited information collection and has had multiple violations.

To begin with, there are three types of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment: obscenity, libel, and slander. Obscenity is "anything which depraves or corrupts minds open to immoral influence" (Freedom of Speech, 2003). Despite the fact that the definition of obscenity has changed throughout the years, Congress, in general, has reached a consensus in determining that obscenity covers anything that is directed towards or involves youths, including child pornography. For example, in 1949, the Supreme Court upheld, in Rosenberg v. Board of Education of City of New York, that the Board of Education did not have the right to ban schools from carrying books such as Oliver Twist and The

The ACLU argued in the lower court that the censorship provisions are unconstitutional because they would criminalize expression that is protected by the First Amendment and because the terms “indecency” and “patently offensive” are unconstitutionally overbroad and vague. ACLU plaintiffs Particia Nell Warren of Wild Cat Press and Kiyoshi Kuromiya of the Critical Path AIDS Project told judges they fear censorship under the new law. Ann Duvall, president of Surf Watch, took judges on a first-ever live tour of the Internet, including a demonstration of how her company’s software blocks access to sites deemed unsuitable for children. Dr. Donna Hoffman, an expert witness on marketing in cyberspace, tells the court that the censorship law would destroy the democratic nature of cyberspace, causing many “mom & pop” websites to close up shop for fear of civil and criminal penalties under the vague “indecency” ban.

It said that this Act was in a way creating "adult zones" on the internet and that was constitutional based on the decision in Renton v. Playtime theatres Inc. CDA was not trying to ban "indecent" material, just to separate it, so that minors could not access such material. However, the zoning laws could not be applied to the internet because it is not a physical place, therefore a person who posts information cannot be certain that it will not reach minors, since there is no way to prove if a person is a minor when they are online. #

The plaintiff, the State of California, contended that the distribution of obscene material was not protected by the First Amendment. The soliciting and sale of ‘hardcore pornography’ should not be allowed to be mailed out, especially if the receivers did not sign up for the advertisements.

Ashcroft, Attorney General, et al. versus Free Speech Coalition, et al. (2002), the Supreme Court upheld the judgment because the expanded definition of the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 contravenes the provision under the First Amendment. Consequently, the appellant feared that leaving that expanded definition unchallenged in the Supreme Court curtails freedom of speech as enshrined in the Constitution. The Supreme Court interpretation became necessary as the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 led to the plaintiff’s misinterpretation of the regulation or deliberate distortion thereof to advance unlawful ends. Instead, the merit of the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 bans unethical materials depicting children and not just about any pornographic material.

Since there has not been a ruling in this case, the supporters of the censorship laws had to try and find a way to get the internet censored to children. So in the year 2000, Congress passed the Children's Internet Protection Act, which is aimed at the computers in the schools and libraries that the children would have access to. This law was limited to "only the schools and libraries that participated in certain federal programs such as, receiving federal money for technology". The schools and libraries that received this money were required to "install filtering software on all internet terminals to block access to sites with child pornography, obscene material, and material that is harmful to minors". My opinion on this law is that it is even better than the firs one. They are very similar, as you can tell from their names, there is very little changed in the names of the laws. I think that the sites that a minor can look at should be filtered. This way they cannot look at things that can be harmful to them.

In conclusion, the children's online privacy protection act, provides many advantages, such as not allowing websites to collect or use children's information that are under the age of 13, without a parental consent. Websites also need to include the requirement in their privacy policy. This act puts restrictions on the types and methods of marketing that targets children. This act also impacts some businesses, small business has gone out of business or stopped serving children under 13, because of COPPA. Many large companies like Disney and nickelodeon adhere to COPPA regulations, and are still able to continue to serve children.

The Supreme Court lifted a 1996 act banning virtual child pornography. The six to three ruling, led by Justice Anthony Kennedy, says the law violates First Amendment freedom of speech rights guaranteed to every citizen of the United States of America. Although many free speech advocates are shouting victory, many citizens across the country are lamenting over the loss in the fight against child pornography.

In recent years, pornography has established itself as perhaps the most controversial topic arising out of the use of the Internet. The easy availability of this type of sexually explicit material has caused a panic among government officials, family groups, religious groups and law enforcement bodies and this panic has been perpetuated in the media.

The parameters of the term censorship have been changed and manipulated very much over the years. Television and movie ratings have become more lenient against violence and indiscretion because these things are now seen as entertainment. Is this appropriate for our youth? Should children be exposed to these images so early on? How does censorship in the media affect adolescents? Children are the future of our society and need to have some understanding of real world occurrences. Ultimately, censorship can only be determined by the parents. The media cannot filter every bit of controversial images. What rights does the media have in this situation? How are their First Amendment rights applied here? As an aspiring political science

“Never before in history of telecommunications media in the United States has so much indecent (and obscene material been so easily accessible by so many minors in so many American homes with so few restrictions” (qtd in “Pornography and Child Sexual Abuse”). The problem addressed in the quote by the U.S. Department of Justice is pornography, a 10 billion dollar industry, has made its way from discreet taboo to something that is today considered acceptable and even common. With the internet being such a common tool, it is no surprise that there is easy access to sexually explicit material. The widespread accessibility and usage of pornography has changed people’s outlook on the normality of watching such sexually explicit material, and