Internet Pornography, ACLU and CongressAshcroft vs. ACLU, 00-1293, faces a challenge to the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), passed by Congress in 1998. The law, the subject of this essay, attempts to protect minors from exposure to Internet pornography by requiring that commercial websites for adults containing "indecent" material that is "harmful to minors" use age verification mechanisms such as credit cards or adult cards. identification numbers. (Child) An earlier version of the law – the Communications Decency Act of 1996 – was declared an unconstitutional restriction on free speech when challenged by the ACLU; the 1998 version attempted to address constitutional concerns by limiting its reach to commercial websites and providing an exception for material that has "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value to minors." (Communications) COPA makes operators of adult websites liable to criminal penalties - up to a $50,000 fine and six months in prison - if children gain access to material deemed "indecent" by contemporary community standards. ", for children under 16 years of age. This raises the thorny question of which “community” should set the standard for the global Internet world. No one was prosecuted under COPA; the ACLU filed a lawsuit as soon as the law was passed, and a federal judge in Pennsylvania agreed to block its enforcement. The Third Circuit upheld the injunction, ruling that COPA's reliance on community standards improperly allows more conservative communities to dictate what should be considered indecent. The ACLU represents a number of plaintiffs who post materials online, including an art gallery, Salon.com magazine, a bookstore, and the manufacturer of a… paper medium… Web, Beeson responded: “ There is no way to make it a crime to view material that is harmful to minors on the web." A Supreme Court decision is expected in spring 2002. This case does not directly address the issue. question of how Community Standards requirements apply to determine whether online material is obscene (speech that does not receive First Amendment protection) rather than merely indecent (harmful to minors but protected to adults). The court's ruling will still be significant in terms of the future of the "community standards" test for online obscenity.WORKS CITED:Child Online Protection Act. http://www.epic.org/free_speech/censorship/copa.htmlCommunications Decency Act. http://www.epic.org/CDA/cda.html"Legal challenge to COPA" http://www.epic.org/free_speech/copa/complaint.html