{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.012359550561797753, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01348314606741573, 'mean_word_length': 5.230769230769231, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 1, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
"Son Of CDA": The Constitutionality Of The Child Online Protection Act Of 1998

In 1998, Congress passed a second law to regulate online content in the name of protecting children. Although the Child Online Protection Act is arguably a more narrowly tailored approach to protecting children from online indecency than the Communications Decency Act of 1996, the COPA still suppresses a large amount of speech that adults have a constitutional right to receive. This article explains the two laws, analyzes how courts have treated them and finds that while there are slight differences between the two laws, the courts have thus far held that these differences are insignificant compared to their shared constitutional defects. The article recommends that Congress stop attempting to enact laws that technology and parental control make unnecessary and that would harm freedom of expression.