The House Commerce Committee is due to vote on the bill this Thursday, Sept 24.

*Like the CDA, the "Child Online Protection Act" is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.*

The Supreme Court found the CDA unconstitutional because it failed to use the "least restrictive" means to protect children. Although originally narrower than the CDA, the Child Online Protection Act still relied on criminal penalties and government prosecutors, rather than parents, to protect children. Moreover, the bill was amended last week by the House Commerce Subcommittee on Telecommunications to include a prior restraint on speech -- the worst form of censorship.

*Like the CDA, the "Child Online Protection Act" is INEFFECTIVE.*

The Supreme Court found the CDA unconstitutional because it failed to achieve its purpose -- it failed to effectively protect children online. The Child Online Protection Act is likewise ineffective. In this global, decentralized medium, pornography is widely available from overseas, outside the jurisdiction of this proposed legislation.

*Like the CDA, the "Child Online Protection Act" is UNNECESSARY.*

While Congress has been debating whether censorship laws should be adopted, companies and non-profit organizations have responded with wide-ranging efforts to create child-friendly content collections, teach children about appropriate behavior online, and develop voluntary user-controlled filtering software that parents can use to protect their children from inappropriate material.

CDA II legislation has already passed the Senate, so this may be our best chance to keep Congress from making the same mistake twice -- it's up to you!

The bill makes it a crime for anyone, by means of the World Wide Web, to make any communication for commercial purposes that is "harmful to minors," unless the person has restricted access by minors by requiring a credit card number or other age verification procedure specified by the Federal Communications Commission.

NEW PRIVACY INTRUSIONS

By offering a defense to any Website that verifies the age of visitors, the bill in effect requires a new type of privacy intrusion. The bill has privacy protections intended to limit disclosure of such information, but the protections have a major loophole, allowing the disclosure of personal information for "legitimate business activites related to" making such communications.

Last year, you joined CIEC and were part of the lawsuit that went all the way to the Supreme Court to overturn Congress' first attempt to censor the Net. You haven't heard from us since our Supreme Court victory, but now there is a new crisis requiring your involvement.

The Center for Democracy and Technology has coordinated the work of CIEC. CDT is a non-profit public interest organization based in Washington, DC. CDT works for public policies that advance civil liberties and democratic values in new computer and communications technologies.