ppeals have not been entirely successful in all circumstances. In particular, no medium capable of communicating sexually explicit speech has elicited a more visceral response from legislators than the Internet. Despite the rabid desires of some moralizing state and municipal legislators to eradicate the steady supply of porn made available in their communities via the Internet, they have always found themselves entirely impotent to do anything about it. The United States Congress, however, has continued to insist on finding a solution to the "problem." In the late 1990's, in the name of "protecting" minors from sexually explicit speech on the Internet, Congress first passed the Communications Decency Act (CDA) , and afterwards the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) . Predictably, a parade of litigation followed in the respective wake of each.
             As Congress has discovered, the courts have been particularly hostile toward both the CDA and COPA. In 1997, the Supreme Court overwhelmingly struck down the CDA as unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. COPA-Congress' attempt at "fixing" the constitutional problems with the CDA-is experiencing a comparable lack of success. As this essay is being written, COPA is languishing in the midst of litigation over a preliminary injunction against its enforcement. The preliminary injunction was granted by the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. Recently, the Supreme Court granted certiorari, and based on the Court's reasoning in striking down the CDA, there is every indication that the injunction will be upheld. It seems as though the writing is on the wall: barring some big surprise, COPA looks every bit as doomed as the CDA.
             The courts' hostility toward both the CDA and COPA is centered on the fact that neither are narrowly tailored enough to achieve their purported purpose wit...