Declan McCullagh
WASHINGTON--The U.S. House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly
Tuesday to
restrict computer-generated sex images of minors.
The 413-to-8 vote aims to circumvent a recent
Supreme Court
decision that nixed an earlier ban on "morphed"
erotica. A similar
proposal has been introduced in the Senate. With
the enthusiastic
backing of both Democrats and Republicans, final
passage of a bill this
year is all but certain.
"This bill closes the door left open by the recent
Supreme Court
decision," Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, said at a
press conference
Tuesday. "I urge the Senate to take action
immediately."
Law enforcement considers restrictions on
computer-generated images
a key tool in fighting child pornography, backing
that has made the
issue an easy sell in Washington despite lingering
constitutional
concerns. Congress has moved swiftly to pass
replacement legislation
after the high court struck down the previous law
on April 16 on First
Amendment grounds.
Immediately after the court's decision,
politicians from both major
parties pledged to try again.
That afternoon, Sen. Orrin Hatch, a Utah
Republican and one-time
Mormon bishop, vowed to "craft new legislation."
Attorney General
John Aschroft held a press conference two weeks
later to lend the
Bush administration's support to the letter to
Congress offering tips on
how to craft a law that would survive Supreme
Court scrutiny.
Ashcroft said in a statement Tuesday evening that
the bill "will
strengthen the ability of law enforcement to
protect children from abuse
and exploitation. I urge the Senate to bring this
important legislation to
the floor as soon as possible."
The new bill includes relatively minor changes to the 1996 version of
the law, known as the Child
Pornography Prevention Act. That legislation had prohibited any image
that "appears to be" a
minor.
By contrast, the new Child Obscenity and Pornography Prevention Act
(COPPA) refers to any
computer-generated image that is "virtually indistinguishable from that
of a minor engaging in
sexually explicit conduct."
Supporters of the new legislation claim it has been carefully crafted
to pass constitutional muster.
Rep. Adam Schiff, a California Democrat, said COPPA had been written
"as narrowly as possible"
to avoid running afoul of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of
expression.
But some legal scholars said they are dubious about whether the changes
will be sufficient to
survive an expected legal challenge, once the bill becomes law.
"I don't understand why they think this statute is going to eradicate
any of the problems that the
Supreme Court explicitly delineated in its recent decision," said Megan
Gray, a lawyer at the
Electronic Privacy Information Center who specializes in free speech
law.
The courts have repeatedly turned back attempts to limit digital
pornography, striking down laws
aimed at curtailing publication of smut on the Internet and requiring
public libraries to filter Internet
content.
In their April ruling, a 6-3 majority of the justices wrote that
Congress' first try at banning
"morphed" porn was akin to prohibiting dirty thoughts.
"First Amendment freedoms are most in danger when the government seeks
to control thought or
to justify its laws for that impermissible end," Justice Anthony
Kennedy ( news - web sites) wrote
for the majority. "The right to think is the beginning of freedom, and
speech must be protected from
the government because speech is the beginning of thought."
Prosecutors argue that the COPPA bill is needed, since otherwise it is
too difficult to prove that an
actual child was involved in the production of an electronic image on,
say, a seized hard drive.
But foes of COPPA in the House Judiciary Committee ( news - web sites)
called the measure "a
hasty attempt drafted by the Department of Justice ( news - web sites)
to override the United
States Supreme Court's decision," which is "fatally flawed."
Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., the top Democrat on the committee, voted
against COPPA on
Tuesday. The only Republican to vote against COPPA was libertarian
firebrand Rep. Ron Paul of
Texas.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=70&ncid=70&e=3&u=/cn/20020626/tc_cn/939407
