[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Search Archives]

Re: Re[2]: Communications Decency Act (CDA) and the SCA

On Mon, 12 Feb 1996, Chuck Graves wrote:

>      Greetings, all.
>      Am I missing something about the CDA? I thought said Act had to do 
>      with: 1) sexually explicit materials and 2) public availability to 
>      minors. 

Thats right.  And 'sexual explict' is very vauge.  The standards are 
being taken acroos the board, thus, the most restrictive apply.

>      Frankly, no one has taken away your right to privately post whatever 
>      you damn well please.

Wrong.  If you post to a list that is avliable to minors or that has 
unrestricted access, you can be liable for distributing obscene material 
to a minor (if the material is judged obscene).

>      And checking the content of a private post is tantamount to opening 
>      your private mail. Nasty business without a court order.

Wrong again.  E-mail is considered a telephone call and is regulated by 
such rules.  Of course, it's illegal (or was) to tap a phone line.  Regan 
OTOH, was all for spying on American citizens.

>      Enforcement beyond that I would think: 1) absurd, 2) criminal, 3) 
>      unconstitutional, and 4) impossible...in increasing degree of effort 
>      (or insanity as the case may be.)

That may be, but these _are_ Republicans we are talking about.  Common 
sense and the realities of the internet are not something under 
consideration here.  An interesting note: Newt - who has his own Web 
page, opposed the law.

>      Of course, I may have missed something. What do you think, Yaakov?
>      Regards,
>      Tadhg
>      ps. It does bring up an interesting problem. If you post something on 
>      a bulletin board in NYC and someone looks in from Omaha, whose 
>      standards of 'decency' apply? Reader or poster? Wouldn't you just love 
>      to be on the 'Big Bench' when that one hits?  8^)

The standards of Omaha apply.  The internet reaches all areas of the 
country, thus the most restrictive rules are applied.  This was already 
brought up when a sting op conducted in Tennesse nabbed someone in 
California.  Tennesse rules were applied, regardless of the fact the 
material was legal in California.

Michael Limner, esq
* "'Cause I'm the god of destruction, that's why!" - Susano Orbatos,Orion * 
*                              Michael Surbrook                           *
*                susano@access.digex.net / surbrook@aol.com               *
*            Attacked Mystification Police / AD Police / ESWAT            *
* Society for Creative Anachronism / House ap Gwystl / Company of St.Mark *