cr> Is CDA constitutional?

1996-01-11

Richard Moore

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
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.
 ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~--~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~