Sign Up: Free Daily Tech E-letter
Primer: Children, The Internet and Pornography
The PROTECT Act, among many other provisions, would outlaw digitally "morphed" images made to appear as if children are having sex or being used in pornographic images. Morphed child porn would be illegal if prosecutors can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the maker intended others to believe that the images were actual child pornography. That language, authored by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), also requires pornographers to show that children were not involved in their products. Also included in this bill is a prohibition, sponsored by Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), against misleading domain names that lead children to pornography Web sites.
CDA: Communications Decency Act
Highlights: The law called for up to two years in jail, plus up to a $250,000 fine for engaging in speech that is "indecent" or "patently offensive" in a place where minors can view or hear it.
CPPA: Child Pornography Prevention Act
The Supreme Court struck down this law, which, unlike the CDA and COPA, specifically applied to "morphed" child pornography. The law would have forbidden the practice of taking images of adults engaged in sexual acts or posing nude, and digitally altering the images to give them the appearance that the subjects were children. The court said that the law would have also hurt artistic expression.
COPPA: Child Obscenity and Pornography Prevention Act (2002)
Introduced shortly after the CPPA was shot down by the Supreme Court, this bill would have outlawed adult images that are digitally "morphed" to appear as if children are having sex or being used in pornographic images. It would have forbidden morphed images that purport to show prepubescent children. It also would have allowed pornographers to prove in court, if charged with showing images of child pornography, that they morphed the images in question -- essentially shifting the burden of proof to the defendant.
COPPA: Child Obscenity and Pornography Prevention Act (2003)
This bill also tackles digitally morphed pornography, but tries to skirt the constitutional problems in a different fasion than the 2002 COPPA. This bill does not quibble over whether computer-generated or transmitted pornography is real or fake child porn. It simply outlaws any solicitation to buy or sell child pornography, so even if pornographer knows it's a morphed image, representing it as child pornography would make it just as illegal.
COPPA: The Children's Online Privacy Protection Act
This law is not the same COPPA that outlaws digitally morphed images designed to look like children having sex. Rather, it is a much less controversial bill that has to do with protecting children's privacy from online marketers. The law has not been challenged.
CMEPA: Child Modeling Exploitation Prevention Act
CMEPA would have barred Web sites from posting photographs of clothed, but suggestively posed children.
About TechNews.com | Advertising | Contact TechNews.com | Privacy
My Profile | Rights & Permissions | Subscribe to print edition | Syndication