The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia has once again declared that the Child Online Protection Act goes against the US Constitution because it stifles the freedom of speech. It seems that the law is not defined as well as it should be and consequently the use of parental monitoring and filtering software is a more viable means of ensuring children stay safe while surfing the web, as opposed to passing the previously mentioned law.

According to the Philadelphia court of law, parents can freely decide when and how to use a filter in order to protect their little ones. It is a voluntary security measure that a parent can employ at any time, a measure that affects the child alone. Passing the COPA law would mean that anyone who posts online information that will be viewed by minors is subject to criminal or civil penalties.

Back in 2007, another court of law decreed that the Child Online Protection Act is not constitutional and an appeal was filed (the recent court ruling is the outcome of said appeal). Although COPA has the full support of the US Justice Department, nothing can be done until the law is approved in a court of law. It must be noted that the law dates back to 1998, but up to this day it could not be implemented by its supporters.

According to John Morris, general counsel for the Center for Democracy & Technology, there is no viable way of keeping children out of certain sites. Even though these sites can be legally accessed by adults, to this date a method of efficiently locking out children has yet to be determined. If the law were to take effect, then all the sites currently on the Internet would have to become family-oriented ones and all the content that is not appropriate for children would have to be removed.

The Communications Decency Act is a law meant to protect children from accessing explicit adult material while using the Internet and it has been declared unconstitutional as well. This occurred a while back, after the Reno v. American Civil Liberties Group case.