Talk:Child Online Protection Act

message: Why does this apply to pornography, and not to gore and/or otherwise violent and desturbing material? It seems quite ridiculous to me...
:American priorities are rather wacky. Ashibaka tock 03:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why Does COPA Only Apply to Pornography?

message: Actually, it doesn't just apply to pornography... if you read the statute, you will not find the word "pornography" anywhere in its content.  The exact phrase is "material harmful to minors."  The question now, however, is to decide what constitutes "material harmful to minors".  Pornography certainly applies, but I believe that extremely violent portrayals should also apply.  I, as you, would hope that we would stop equating COPA to porn and apply it to anything inappropriate for minors.
Now, how do we define that?  Well, it shouldn't be too difficult.  We already have ratings systems for movies, television, and video games.  The techniques applied by the governing bodies of those materials should also be applied to rating internet sites.  The problem, however, is that nobody could possibly rate every site that pops up on the web.  However, should a potential offender be identifed, then the governing body should hear the case against the offender, decide whether the site is indeed "harmful to minors" and serve a sufficient notice for the individual to comply with the law.  If he still fails to comply, then he should be held accountable in a court of law. Mll1013 20:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Answer

message: To what degree (if any) does this apply to Wikipedia? (This may not be the right place to ask, but I don't know where else).  AFAIK, Wikipedia does not ask for a birthdate, and it does contain information that might fall under the descriptions included.  Does anyone know? -- BlindVenetian 11:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't, because it doesn't apply to anyone anymore. Hoorah! Kuronue 01:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Applicability to Wikipedia

message: This page has gone through a lot of vandalism recently. What does everyone else think? Is it maybe time to request semi-protection? 69.19.14.31 (talk) 20:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-protect?

message: The law was held unconstitutional in the third circuit.  The S.Ct simply failed to hear the appeal, which has no legal effect.  The law is still valid in all the other circuits.
71.237.90.173 (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Continued Legality

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Child Online Protection Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090124180944/http://news.yahoo.com:80/s/ap/20090121/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_internet_blocking to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090121/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_internet_blocking
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Child Online Protection Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120712130258/http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/uncategorized/aclu-v-mukasey to http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/uncategorized/aclu-v-mukasey
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:40, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified