In Victory for Online Free Speech

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by brneyedgrl80, Jun 29, 2004.

  1. brneyedgrl80
    Offline

    brneyedgrl80 Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2004
    Messages:
    558
    Thanks Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Phoenix-it's-dry-heat-Arizona
    Ratings:
    +3
    I gotta hear what you guys think of this.


    In Victory for Online Free Speech, Supreme Court Upholds Block on Internet Censorship Law

    June 29, 2004

    Justices Call Criminal Restrictions on Speech "A Repressive Force in the Lives and Thoughts of a Free People"

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    NEW YORK - Recognizing the severe consequences of criminalizing online free speech, the Supreme Court today upheld a ban on yet another government attempt to censor the Internet, saying that content-based prohibitions of speech "have the constant potential to be a repressive force in the lives and thoughts of a free people."

    At issue was the Child Online Protection Act, which imposed draconian criminal sanctions, with penalties of up to $50,000 per day and up to six months imprisonment, for online material acknowledged as valuable for adults but judged "harmful to minors."

    "Today’s ruling from the Court demonstrates that there are many less restrictive ways to protect children without sacrificing communication intended for adults," said ACLU Associate Legal Director Ann Beeson, who argued the case before the Justices last March and earlier in 2001.

    "By preventing Attorney General Ashcroft from enforcing this questionable federal law, the Court has made it safe for artists, sex educators, and web publishers to communicate with adults about sexuality without risking jail time."

    The speech that was criminalized under the law included sexual advice and education, web-based chat rooms and discussion boards involving sexual topics, and websites for bookstores, art galleries and the news media.

    Read more here: http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=16025&c=252
     
  2. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    They should not censor the internet. Period....

    It's the parents job to monitor their children, invest the $ to have the types of filters they want their kids to have, if they are to lazy to watch where their children are going.

    I wouldn't just tell elementary school aged kids to 'go play', without giving them parameters and checking up on them once in a while.
     
  3. insein
    Offline

    insein Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    Messages:
    6,096
    Thanks Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Philadelphia, Amazing huh...
    Ratings:
    +356
    So why the hell can't that tell the FCC this? Radio restrictions are a freaking joke. Then they pretty much let TV get away with everything. I guarantee if they spent more money on educating people on what a V-chip is and how to use it, they'd be way ahead of the game. I couldn't believe how many people didn't know what a V-Chip was when i worked at Best Buy.
     
  4. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511
    :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
     
  5. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    If I ruled the world (great thought) all porn sites would be REQUIRED to have a domain ending in .xxx (i.e. www.penthouse.xxx). Any website with porn that didn't have such an extension would face a hefty fine... say $250,000 per day. That way the porn is out there for those who want it, but easily blocked.
     
  6. HGROKIT
    Offline

    HGROKIT Active Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,398
    Thanks Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Federal Way WA, USA
    Ratings:
    +19
    Now that is an excellent idea!

    :clap:
     
  7. Hobbit
    Offline

    Hobbit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    5,099
    Thanks Received:
    420
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Near Atlanta, GA
    Ratings:
    +421
    I'm glad for this decision, but why can't the Supreme Court move on more pressing limitations of free speech and property rights. The DMCA has been nothing but a hassle since it passed in 1998 (thanks a bundle, Willy). It outlaws any technology that gets around copy protection features, meaning you can't make legitamite backups of your media, nor can you circumvent things like regional coding and built-in ads. This provision was designed to outlaw cable "black boxes," but so far, all it's been used for is to limit the freedoms of legitamite citizens.

    I mean, some CDs are designed to not be played in computers, and if you figure out a way to make it play anyway, you can be slapped with thousands of dollars in fines.

    Also, you can now go down to a federal clerk with nothing but an IP, and instantly, you can get a name, address, and phone number. You don't even need to prove you own a copyright.

    I'm glad the Supreme Court is finally catching up with the times, but they really need to get on the stick. I'll still never forgive them for ruling in favor of Bill Gates in Apple vs. Microsoft.
     
  8. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    Another question... how is porn free speech, but saying "Vote for George Bush" 60 days prior to an election NOT free speech???

    :finger: for you, John McCain. :fu2:
     

Share This Page