🚀 go-pugleaf

cook@rzdisk.enet.qntm.com (Wakko Warner) writes:
> 
> >You may be in favor of 'banning smut', but how would you feel if they
> >decided talk.politics.guns was a likely hangout for militia members,
> >and had it banned?
> 
> 	That's not covered in the bill, is it? 

That's not covered in _this_ bill.  This bill tries to set a precedent
that says the government can ban a very broad range of material based
on content.

>       The laws that they
> 	want to apply to Internet are existing laws that cover 
> 	telephones, television, radio, etc.

Not quite.  The current laws regarding telephones, TV, and radio are
limited to 'obscenity'.  The Exon amendment extends these laws to
restrict 'indecent' speech via telephone, modem, and computer network.
There is a fairly clear definition of obscenity (although it relies on
'community standards' which don't have much relevance on the net), but
I'm not aware of any legal definition of 'indecent'.  Furthermore, the
Supreme Court has ruled the 'obscenity' is illegal, but 'indecency' is
protected by the first amendment.

> >Of course, there are numerous other more pragmatic issues as well.
> >First, if I'm an internet provider and somebody in Amsterdam posts
> >'smut' on alt.binaries.pictures.misc, when it propagates to my site I
> >will become a violator of this new law even though I haven't actually
> >done anything.  What do I do?  Scan every single posting that comes in
> >to be sure it is clean?  Not bloody likely.
> 
> 	That's the big question in regards to the bill. No easy
> 	answer if you're a politician.

The politicians don't need an easy answer.  They can pass the bill and
leave it to the internet providers and local authorities to hash out
the messy details.  This means that not only will the amendment fail
to accomplish the politicians' stated goals, it will leave almost
everybody in limbo, and likely cost a handful of internet providers
their businesses and tens of thousands of dollars when they are used
as 'test cases'.

> >Second, 'obscenity' is determined by 'community standards'.  If I run
> >a BBS in California, and somebody from Tennessee dials in, if they
> >find something on the BBS that violates TN community standards, I've
> >violated the law even if that something isn't 'obscene' in California.
> 
> 	Are there any current laws that set precedent for this?

Thomas v. United States of America.  Currently on appeal in the Sixth
Circuit Court of Appeals.