The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a law meant to punish pornographers who peddle dirty pictures to Web-surfing kids is probably an unconstitutional muzzle on free speech.
The high court divided 5-to-4 over a law passed in 1998, signed by then-President Clinton and now backed by the Bush administration. ...
Holding a new trial will allow discussion of what technology, if any, might allow adults to see and buy material that is legal for them while keeping that material out of the hands of children. ...
Never mind for now about keeping children out of the hands of people "protected" from this law by this court decision. Our first priority, as you all know, is to remove every bolt from the doors of public decency and inflate the public consciousness with visions of Twinks and HottTotts.
"We're very pleased with the decision," ACLU lawyer Ann Beeson said. "The status quo is still with us and the court made it safe for artists, sex educators and Web publishers to communicate with adults without risking jail time." ...
The law, which never took effect, would have authorized fines up to $50,000 for the crime of placing material that is "harmful to minors" within the easy reach of children on the Internet.
Simple solution: determine by a battery of federally funded child psychology and psychoanalytic studies that chidlren actually aren't as susceptible to "harmful" (schmarmful) material as every generation prior to us has believed. Brilliant, I smell grant!
The law also would have required adults to use access codes and or other ways of registering before they could see objectionable material online.
How draconian!
For now, the law, known as the Child Online Protection Act, would sweep with too broad a brush, Kennedy wrote. "There is a potential for extraordinary harm and a serious chill upon protected speech" if the law took effect, he said. ...
People of America, people of America, this is a public service announcement:
Above all we must protect adults' rights to see children getting boinked. We must not, I repeat, must not, err on the side of caution to protect children from the pedophilia industry.
The justices unanimously struck down the first version of a child-protection law passed in 1996, just as the Internet was becoming a commonplace means of communication, research and entertainment. ...
Material that is indecent but not obscene is protected by the First Amendment. Adults may see or purchase it, but children may not. ...
Simple solution: download that nifty new Newspeak Editor, version 3.0. These fiendish prol nuances between "obscene" and "indecent" simply must go. Children need to toughen up anyway. ("Here, twink, twink, twink...!")
The case is Ashcroft v. ACLU, 03-218.
No comments:
Post a Comment