The legislation aims to “create another brick in the wall against on-line sex offenders,” according to the New South Wales Attorney General. However, it has also faced criticism for being too invasive and challenging the principles of democracy.
The most questionable aspect of the law is how it will be policed. Peter Coroneos of Australia’s Internet Industry Association commented that a balance needs to be reached in protecting children from material meant to be viewed by adults and between criminalising the personal preferences of consenting adults.
In a similar vein on the other side of the world, the US Supreme Court is to hear arguments over a 1999 law that requires web site operators to shield children from viewing “harmful” material on-line. The US Child On-line Protection Act (COPA) has faced opposition from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and others. COPA was passed by Congress after an older law, the Communications Decency Act (CDA), was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
Although lawmakers have included some language in COPA designed to make it narrower than the CDA, opponents argue that these changes are merely cosmetic. The CDA has in fact been described as “the closest equivalent” to the New South Wales legislation by Irene Graham, executive director of Electronic Frontiers Australia.
In the US, COPA is to be debated by the Justice Department and the American Civil Liberties Union next week. COPA describes material that is “harmful to minors” as content that could adversely affect children though it does not need to reach an illegal level of obscenity.