🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4ps8nf$mlp@acme.freenet.columbus.oh.us>,
Fred Moore <fmoore@freenet.columbus.oh.us> wrote:
>Thanks for the info, Gary.
>
>I did _not_ mishear the NPR report. I know this because the "expert" being
>interviewed made a BIG point of saying that only _part_ of the censorship
>was declared invalid. 
>
Hmmm.  Well, I'll see if I can find a transcript or RealAudio recording 
of the report.  NPR often puts them up on the Web.  If they're incorrect, 
I'll lodge a complaint.

The case is quite complex but prior case law regarding the First 
Amendment is pretty clear.  The Supreme Court has held time and time 
again that "indecent" speech is protected by the First Amendment.

It strikes me that much of what was going on was an educational issue.  
The question was whether the internet was to be likened to radio and tv 
with their tight censership based on the (now moot) notion of scarce 
bandwidth, or whether the internet would be likened to print with almost 
complete freedom of expression protected under the first.

The conclusion of the judges is that the internet out prints even 
print.  They held that it is "the most inclusive medium of mass speech yet 
developed and deserves the highest protection from government intrusion" 
(Judge Dalzell's words.)

>I have only casually been following the trial, although I am quite
>interested in the outcome, so I defer to your knowledge of the facts.
>Unfortunately, I don't know enough about the specifics to lodge a coherent
>complaint w/ NPR.
>

I'll look into it.  My knowledge of the facts is far from complete.  This 
is a very complex case.  But I've read the full text of the decision and 
all three judges clearly state that the "indecency" and "patently 
offensive" provisions of the law are unconstitutional.

If NPR has said otherwise, perhaps it's sour grapes.  Radio is a 
comparatively heavily censorsed medium compared to print (and now) to the 
internet.

--Gary




>--Fred
>
>Gary Gorka (ggorka@coil.com) wrote:
>: In article <4prunk$cvb@acme.freenet.columbus.oh.us>,
>: Fred Moore <fmoore@freenet.columbus.oh.us> wrote:
>: >Well, not to throw water on the parade, but according to an NPR report
>: >this morning, the Court only threw out the most vague and subjective parts
>: >of the law. In fact, most of the law, which bans so-called "indecent"
>: >material, was not even challenged by the EFF and others.
>: >
>: >Just for the record, I'm not in favor of pandering explicit sexual images
>: >to minors; however, we're still stuck with much of the same arbitrary
>: >morality we always were. Furthermore, the issue of parental responsibility
>: >and monitoring goes unaddressed yet again.
>: >
>: >My 2 cents...
>: >
>
>: This is incorrect.  Read the text of the decision.  Both the "indecent" 
>: and "patently offensive" provisions of the law were challenged and 
>: "enjoined" in the overturning of the law.
>
>: The issue of parental responsibility and monitoring was addressed 
>: consistently and constantly throughout the trial and in the text of the 
>: decision.  The judges even went so far as to chastise congress for their 
>: blatant dismissal of proposed legislation supporting parental monitoring.
>
>: NPR has either misinterpreted the finding or you misheard the NPR 
>: report.  It is precisely the "indecency" provision that was challenged 
>: and overturned, and the "patently offensive" provisions were thrown out 
>: for good measure.
>
>: Perhaps they were referring to "obscenity" and child pornography.  
>: Neither of these were challenged by the case because they are already 
>: illegal under existing law.  
>
>: I've been following this case closely and working with various groups to 
>: get the CDA overturned (as has Matt, particularly with EFF).  You must 
>: have misheard the report.  If you didn't, NPR needs an immediate call to 
>: get their facts straight
>
>: --Gary			
>: 																
>: 									
>
>
>
>: >--Fred
>: >
>: >
>: >Matthew Gaylor (freematt@bronze.coil.com) wrote:
>: >: Subject: CDA IS DEFEATED!!!
>: >
>: >: The US Federal Court in Philadelphia struck down both sections of the
>: >: Communications Decency Act (CDA) in an unanimous 3-0 decision today
>: >: (6-12-96).
>: >
>: >: You may view the whole decision at:
>: >
>: >: http://www.eff.org/Alerts/HTML/960612_aclu_v_reno_decision.html
>: >
>: >: Regards, Matt-
>: >
>: >
>: >
>: >
>: >
>: >: ****************************************************************************
>: >: Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues
>: >: Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA
>: >: on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week)
>: >: Matthew Gaylor,1933 E. Dublin-Granville Rd.,#176, Columbus, OH  43229
>: >: ****************************************************************************
>: >
>: >: -- 
>: >: +++++++++++++++++++++++
>: >: TANSTAAFL
>: >: Columbus, OH
>: >: +++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>