 |
| |
 |
Ashcroft v. ACLU: Evaluation |
|
 |
| |
 |
Related Links |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
Options |
 |
| The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content. |
|
|
[No Subject] (Score: 0) by Anonymous on Wednesday, June 30 @ 10:21:17 EDT | I haven't yet decided whether I come down on the side of the filter-promoting majority or agree with the Breyer dissent. This statute might be better for freedom of speech than filters... or it might not.
Filters are creepy. U.S. demand for sex-free internet for our kids is fueling this industry to develop what is, from the perspective of free speech, a very, very bad technology. Any filter you develop which is good at blocking sex sites can be purchased and implemented by some foreign government to block political speech. Moreover, as Breyer rightly pointed out in American Library, filters are imperfect. Even when implemented with the "innocent" intention of blocking sexually explicit material, they tend to block a lot of non-obscene stuff which ought to be constitutionally protected.
Thus, it might make more sense, and pose much less of a long-term threat to free speech world-wide, to target obscenity at the source, as this statute attempts to do. The statute targets only commercial obscenity, and the constitutional caselaw on obscenity is pretty thorough and clear. So I think the "chilling" effect would not as big as made out to be. Anybody who has something to say should be protected by the "literary, artistic, political, scientific... value" clause. And if you're not sure whether you fit into that category, make your speech non-commercial.
There is one big problem with this particular statute that concerns me, however, which is that it redefines obscenity. Each prong of the obscenity definition is modified by the phrase "with respect to minors" or "for minors." Breyer thinks this narrows the definition of obscenity, but I think it expands it.
Particularly the prong that, "[the material], taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors. What would this mean? Lots of Americans feel that 17-year-olds shouldn't be reading "Catcher in the Rye" or learning about condoms. Most Americans probably feel that 10-year-olds shouldn't. Is the "for minors" standard defined with reference to a 10-year-old or a 17-year-old? Who decides? (And if minors can't vote, does that mean that nothing holds serious political value for them?) And remember, if they aren't suitable for minors, none of us will be able to access them on the web without identifying ourselves.
Breyer pooh-poohs the idea that these changes could dramatically expand the coverage of the statute, arguing that if it has value for adults, it certainly has value for a significant group of minors as well. But surely Congress thought it changing something when it added those words to the statute. If the web's commercial content has to be purified to be age-appropriate for 10-year-olds (or for a conservative's idea of what is appropriate for 17-year-olds) then maybe this is not the safer route to go....
|
[ Reply to This ]
|
|
|
|
Leges
humanae nascuntur, vivunt, moriuntur
Human laws are born, live, and die
Contributors retain copyright interests in all stories, comments and submissions.
The PHP-Nuke engine on which LawMeme runs is copyright by PHP-Nuke, and is freely available under the GNU GPL.
Everything else is copyright
copyright 2002-04 by the Information Society Project.
This material may be distributed only subject to the terms and conditions
set forth in the Open Publication License, v1.0 or later.
The latest version is currently available at http://www.opencontent.org/openpub/.
You can syndicate our news with backend.php
Page Generation: 1.755 Seconds
|