). It also prohibited knowingly sending or displaying to a person under eighteen years of age any communication that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or excretory activities or organs (Miller 68). A year later a suit was filed against the CDA by 17 organizations and it was found to be unconstitutional under the 1st amendment. They said it was nothing more than a broad suppression of speech that was aimed at adults. Not only did it violate those adults rights but this law is awfully vague. It doesnt define any terms in its definition. After the CDA the government drafted a new bill, the COPA. The government took the complaints from the CDA and tried to fix them by saying that the COPA applies to the web only, only commercial purposes, and only applies to harmful communications. They did not do anything about the 1st amendment though and once again it was found to violate the 1st amendment and the 5th amendment now in 1999. It was infringing on the 5th amendment by being so vague still. A lot of sites are starting to comply with the COPA even though it was found unconstitutional because the government still supports it. The CDA and COPA are both bad ideas and attempts by the government to filter the internet and show that governments regulation wont work because it brings unwanted solutions.By placing the PICS rating system in place the internet would be limited in content and taking away peoples rights to expression. PICS stands for the Platform of Internet Content Selection, and originated from the people who actually designed the World Wide Web while the Communications Decency Act was being thought up by the government. They thought that instead of banning what people can put on the internet the user could just block it on his end. Then Everybody could then carve out his or her own zone of comfort on the Internet, with just the right mix of Puritanis...
