@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Date: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 From: •••@••.••• (Brian Steffen) To: Multiple recipients of list <•••@••.•••> Subject: Can the Decency Act be constitutional? The Communications Decency Act is so far-fetched that I can't imagine any court upholding its constitutionality. Not to give the pro-censorship folks any fodder, but can anyone on this list imagine any arguments based in exisitng doctrine that would support the statute against a First Amendment challenge? ____________________________________________________________________ Brian Steffen : Please pass the milk please. Simpson College : Please pass the milk please. Indianola, IA 50021 : Please pass the milk please. 515-961-1650 : -They Might Be Giants Check out our new home page: http://www.simpson.edu:80/~thesimp/ ___________________________________________________________________ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Date: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 From: •••@••.••• (Richard K. Moore) To: Multiple recipients of list <•••@••.•••> Subject: Re: Can the Decency Act be constitutional? At 2:36 PM 1/11/96, Brian Steffen wrote: >can anyone on this list imagine any arguments based >in exisitng doctrine that would support the statute against a First >Amendment challenge? Might they construe "community standards" to include kid audiences in the case of the net? They must have some legal strategy, unless the objective is to blame the courts for porn... -rkm @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Date: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 From: •••@••.••• To: Multiple recipients of list <•••@••.•••> Subject: Re: Can the Decency Act be constitutional? In a message dated 96-01-11 12:47:16 EST, •••@••.••• (Richard K. Moore) writes: >Might they construe "community standards" to include kid audiences in the >case of the net? They must have some legal strategy, unless the objective >is to blame the courts for porn... > > This would be in violation of FCC vs Sable which prohibited cross-the board banning of indecent phone sex and required regulation of indecent telephone content to be by the least restrictive means possible to preserve adults' 1st Amendment rights. A lesser means of regulation exists because of devices such as Net Nanny and AOL Parental Controls that enables end-users to restrict access to children. Also info-providers can restrict access to minors and require credit-card #'s as proof of age to gain access to adult material. The CDA, as it stands, recognizes no such lesser-restrictive means. It's just plain illegal under the biggest law on the block. Cheers, Andrea Ploscowe Publisher & CEO Roadside Interactive, Inc. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Date: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 From: "Rod McCarvel" <•••@••.•••> To: Multiple recipients of list <•••@••.•••> Subject: Re: Can the Decency Act be constitutional? On 11 Jan 96, •••@••.••• wrote: > In a message dated 96-01-11 12:47:16 EST, •••@••.••• > (Richard K. Moore) writes: > > >Might they construe "community standards" to include kid audiences in the > >case of the net? They must have some legal strategy, unless the objective > >is to blame the courts for porn... > > > > > > This would be in violation of FCC vs Sable which prohibited cross-the board > banning of indecent phone sex and required regulation of indecent telephone > content to be by the least restrictive means possible to preserve adults' 1st > Amendment rights. > > [deletia] But, under *Pacifica* indecent speech may be restricted if the medium (in this case, the 'Net) inherently embodies certain qualities -- an "intrusive" (i.e., into the home) or "pervasive" nature, or a "unique accesability to children." I suspect that this is precisely how the CDA proponents intend to address the matter in court -- by drawing an analogy to broadcast, and representing the CDA as a minor, technical extension of existing settled law. Now then, this argument is patently silly to anyone with any familiarity with online resources and the culture they spawn; *Sable* is by far the better analogy (for that matter, print media may be the *best* analogy). However -- how many of the Big Nine enshrined in that marble temple in DC do you suppose have the *slightest* clue what the Internet and other online resources are all about? Let's assume for a moment that Lonesome Cowboy Bill Rehnquist knows nothing about the Internet except what he reads in the papers and sees on "Geraldo"-- do you trust him to make an informed decision? Now you know why I shudder whenever I hear anyone dismiss the CDA as unconstitutional. Happy trails, Rod Rod McCarvel CWRU School of Law "The United States Constitution -- void where prohibited by law." @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~--~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~ Posted by Richard K. Moore (•••@••.•••) Wexford, Ireland Cyber-Rights: http://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/nii/cyber-rights/ CyberLib: http://www.internet-eireann.ie/cyberlib Materials may be reposted in their entirety for non-commercial use. ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~--~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~
