🚀 go-pugleaf

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. 

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.

--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
: >: +++++++++++++++++++++++