|
|
| Author |
Message |
remmers
|
|
CDA Struck Down
| 
Jun 26 18:19 UTC 1997 |
In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court has struck down the
Communications Decency Act.
|
| 83 responses total. |
danr
|
|
response 1 of 83:
|
Jun 26 19:06 UTC 1997 |
YES!
|
bjorn
|
|
response 2 of 83:
|
Jun 26 21:19 UTC 1997 |
Didn't they already do this once before? Or was that time unoffical or
something?
|
krj
|
|
response 3 of 83:
|
Jun 26 22:05 UTC 1997 |
That was a ruling at the appeals court (lower) level.
|
aruba
|
|
response 4 of 83:
|
Jun 26 22:27 UTC 1997 |
This is great news.
|
senna
|
|
response 5 of 83:
|
Jun 26 23:40 UTC 1997 |
Wahoo! only one qualifier: The net isn't exclusively the property of the
United States, so how could they regulate that? It would just mean more
foreign porn sites and less domestic ones (and it would give parents a false
sense of security). What good would it do?
|
scg
|
|
response 6 of 83:
|
Jun 27 00:24 UTC 1997 |
They can regulate what gets housed on US servers, or put up by Americans,
assuming they can come up with a way to regulate that doesn't infringe on
constitutional rights.
This was actually a unanimous decision that the CDA was unconstitutional.
The 7-2 thing was a disagreement on how unconstitutional it is.
|
scott
|
|
response 7 of 83:
|
Jun 27 01:33 UTC 1997 |
Good news! The Court ideally shouldn't have considered foreign sites,
just whether or not the law was constitutional. Sounds like they did a
good job.
|
bjorn
|
|
response 8 of 83:
|
Jun 27 02:39 UTC 1997 |
I see
(said the blind man to his deaf wife as he picked up his hammer and saw)
<bjorn ducks>
|
mcnally
|
|
response 9 of 83:
|
Jun 27 04:30 UTC 1997 |
One of the insidious things about the CDA was that it made punishable
anything that "made available" to children "indecent" material, raising
questions of whether ISPs could be punished for providing unrestricted
internet access whether or not they had anything to do with providing
"indecent" content.. Be glad that it's been struck down.
re #2: the "wasn't it struck down before" event you're thinking of
was probably the injunction against its enforcement until the legal
issues could be settled.
|
valerie
|
|
response 10 of 83:
|
Jun 27 07:29 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
tsty
|
|
response 11 of 83:
|
Jun 27 09:47 UTC 1997 |
the cda would have changed the united states 'beyond all recognition.'
now we need to work on getting that give-your-crypto-keys-to-them crap
killed .
|
dadroc
|
|
response 12 of 83:
|
Jun 27 13:07 UTC 1997 |
I was sure it would happen. We now have the same level of free spech as
the print media (newspapers and magazines.)
The key bank is a real issue that we might need to live with. That one
comes down to how do we identify a user. The key bank is one way. This is
driven by law enforcement's need to listen in on us. Ug.
|
bjorn
|
|
response 13 of 83:
|
Jun 27 15:29 UTC 1997 |
Well, what the hell are we waiting for?! Let's start complaining people!!
|
jared
|
|
response 14 of 83:
|
Jun 27 20:43 UTC 1997 |
quote of the day - from CNN almanac
"The (Communications Decency Act) is a content-based regulation of speech.
The vagueness of such a regulation raises special First Amendment
concerns because of its obvious chilling effect on free speech."
-- Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens
|
tsty
|
|
response 15 of 83:
|
Jun 27 21:30 UTC 1997 |
i'll buy that quote.
but i will not sell my crypto keys.
|
senna
|
|
response 16 of 83:
|
Jun 27 22:47 UTC 1997 |
How would it have changed grex? forced us to censor our cfs and party? Or
worse?
|
mdw
|
|
response 17 of 83:
|
Jun 27 23:12 UTC 1997 |
CDA outlawed obscene and indecent language on the internet, even
including e-mail, and made providers liable, even if they had not
originated such content. What that means is that probably only
moderated forums, where all material can be previewed and editted before
publication, would be safe. In short, if CDA had been upheld in all its
parts, grex "as we know it today" would be impossible.
If a more limited form of CDA had been upheld, then certain parts of
grex would be at greater risk than other parts. For instance, party,
due to its nearly instantaneous public nature, would be particularly at
risk. If it were possible to have members sign an agreement that they
would hold grex blameless for anything they might post or read, then
"members only" conferencing might be possible. If removal of offensive
material upon notification were an adequate defense, then un-moderated
conferencing might be possible, although the flavour would certainly be
damn different. Grex might be able to offer e-mail, if e-mail were held
to be not subject to CDA. If individual users were held accountable,
but grex were not, grex might have to acquire "legal proof" of a user's
identity. That means (for instance) grex might have to set up a network
of agents around the country who could personally inspect user's
identity papers, and "ok" their participation on grex. All of these
changes would obviously have a great impact on grex. The exact nature
of that impact would depend on the exact interpretation of CDA that were
upheld by the courts, and its subsequent interpretation by law
enforcement agencies. Grex is enough of a shoe-string operation,
however, that it is quite possible that even a risk that would be
tolerable to a larger operation (such as compuserve), would render grex
unviable. It is also possible that even if the risks were technically
feasible, that the resulting changes to grex might drive away enough
members that grex might not survive. So, while it is *possible* grex
might have survived, it was by no means a certain prospect.
Also, before we sit back and relax *too much*, I ought to mention that
the war is by no means over. The administration is *still* quite keen
on passing some more limited form of CDA.
|
dang
|
|
response 18 of 83:
|
Jun 27 23:13 UTC 1997 |
and probably forced us to get rid of or limit our completely open access.
|
bjorn
|
|
response 19 of 83:
|
Jun 28 03:16 UTC 1997 |
Well then, let the protest continue - in a more exubrarant form.
|
scg
|
|
response 20 of 83:
|
Jun 28 03:51 UTC 1997 |
I found it somewhat disturbing, although not unexpected, to see a quote from
somebody in the Clinton administration saying something like, "we supported
the law, but we expected it to be found unconstitutional." Supporting
something and thinking the Constitution allows it is one thing. Passing a
law while believing that that sort of law is outlawed by the Constitution
seems to me to be something quite different.
|
mdw
|
|
response 21 of 83:
|
Jun 28 04:52 UTC 1997 |
Unethical is what I could call it, especially seeing as how the
President, at least, has sworn an oath to uphold the constitution.
Supporting legislation one expects will be found unconstitutional does
not sound to me like upholding the constitution.
|
senna
|
|
response 22 of 83:
|
Jun 28 06:04 UTC 1997 |
Pity others don't see it that way. I get it.
|
valerie
|
|
response 23 of 83:
|
Jun 28 13:41 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
remmers
|
|
response 24 of 83:
|
Jun 28 13:57 UTC 1997 |
It seems to me that open, unmoderated forums that are not
subject to pre-screening are the very essence of free speech.
The Court agreed, fortunately. I am still indignant that the
Executive and Legislative branches were willing to sell out the
First Amendment so blithely.
|
