Two years after the U.S. Supreme Court nullified laws passed to halt pornography on the Internet, Congress is at it again. Both the House and the Senate approved legislation focused mainly on keeping minors from gaining access to adult Web sites. \n The bills approved by each house are different and need to be reconciled by a joint committee, then voted on again in each House. After that, the bills would go to President Clinton to be signed into law. \n The House passed the Child Online Protection Act (COPA). According to the bill's principal author, Ohio Republican Mike Oxley, the measure would prohibit adult Web site operators from offering free sexually explicit images to get children to their site. Web sites that required users to provide proof of their age, such as those that asked for a credit card number or an adult access code, would be exempt. Operators who didn't ask for adult verification could be fined up to $50,000 and get six months in jail. \n The Senate approved an amendment to the Internet Tax Freedom Act that would encourage age verification at adult web sites by lifting the tax exempt status of Web site operators who do not comply. The amendment was sponsored by Indiana Republican Dan Coats. \n Previously, the Senate also passed a bill which was similar to COPA. That bill was attached to a large appropriations bill last July. \n Oxley said his bill would survive a constitutional challenge because, unlike the 1966 Communications Decency Act, COPA does not try to outlaw material that is indecent or patently offensive. Instead, it tries to keep minors from viewing that material. The "harmful-to-minors" standard is one that has been upheld by the courts for the last 30 years, he said. \n At one point, Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat and the only House member to speak out against the bill, asked Oxley if his measure would make it illegal for a commercial operator to post the Starr report, as the government did. Oxley said that would not be illegal because the document contained "serious political value." \n Various special interest groups either cheered or condemned the legislative action, depending on their points of view. The National Law Center for Children and Families called it a good thing for American children. A spokesman for the American Civil Liberties Union called the bills "censorship measures" and said there should be no substitute for parents supervising their own children.
All models were at least 18 years old at the time of their performance. 18 U.S.C. 2257 Record-Keeping Requirements Compliance Statement.
