Credit Cards as legal proof of age- adult sites

[Jace]

http://www.firstamendment.com/protecting_banner.php3

check out Sec 231 in this - http://www.epic.org/free_speech/censorship/copa.html

[JR]

``(1) Defense.--It is an affirmative defense to prosecution
under this section that the defendant, in good faith, has
restricted access by minors to material that is harmful to
minors--

``(A) by requiring use of a credit card, debit account,
adult access code, or adult personal identification number;

``( B ) by accepting a digital certificate that verifies age;
or
``(C) by any other reasonable measures that are feasible
under available technology.

``(2) Protection for use of defenses.--No cause of action
may be brought in any court or administrative agency against
any person on account of any activity that is not in
violation of any law punishable by criminal or civil penalty,
and that the person has taken in good faith to implement a
defense authorized under this subsection or otherwise to
restrict or prevent the transmission of, or access to, a
communication specified in this section.

[Grump]

Thats what was proposed in COPA, but it's been struck down twice by the courts.

I remember reading a report that included a narrative by a Justice Dept. investigator stating that upon seeing a page asking for a credit card he moved on to investigate other sites, concluding that the first one had met the requirements.

[JR]

Originally Posted by Grump

Thats what was proposed in COPA, but it's been struck down twice by the courts.

I remember reading a report that included a narrative by a Justice Dept. investigator stating that upon seeing a page asking for a credit card he moved on to investigate other sites, concluding that the first one had met the requirements.

its not on the books?
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/...orlaw/copa.htm

[Grump]

It is on the books, but has been ruled as unconstitutional and an injunction issued. I think the injunction is still in place.

Legal Commentary by Clyde DeWitt
http://www.avnonline.com/index.php?P...tent_ID=105736
"On remand from the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals has once again upheld the preliminary injunction, finding that COPA likely is unconstitutional and, in so doing, condemning it even more roundly than before. The published opinion lists page after page of defects in the law, some of which are quite innovative from a constitutional law perspective."


A more recent article:

http://www.avn.com/index.php?Primary...ent_ID=226106]

"Unmentioned by Wray is the question of whether the federal obscenity laws will survive the challenges presented in the Child Online Protection Act case, which has been before the U.S. Supreme Court twice, and which will soon go to trial in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has already opined twice that the international nature of the Internet exempts it from the "community standards" language of the three-prong test for obscenity established in the Miller v. California decision. With that issue still way up in the air, it seems premature for the Task Force to attempt to target material on the Internet."

[Grump]

BTW, not looking for an argument JR. Yes it is a law, one that has twice been ruled unconstitutional and who's enforcement has been barred by the courts through injunctions.

It is also probably the only law that directly addresses Dianna's question.

[JR]

Originally Posted by Grump

BTW, not looking for an argument JR. Yes it is a law, one that has twice been ruled unconstitutional and who's enforcement has been barred by the courts through injunctions.

It is also probably the only law that directly addresses Dianna's question.

i was just curious and sincerely wanted to know. this conversation has came up many times over the years and i keep forgetting where it all stands and no one acts within the law anyway (i.e. 2257, warning pages etc)
\
would have helped me to just read the first link jace posted.