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

["Mario M. Butter" <mbutter@tower.clark.net>]

> Given even that I am a pro-civil-liberties person, I admit that it is
> unlikely that any particular post will lead to prosecution.  At least while
> the head of the Justice department reports to a Democrat like Clinton.

Since a `Democrat like Clinton' signed the damn thing, I guess he'd have no
qualms about enforcing it.

Mario

Mario M. Butter            |GAT d++$ H>++ s:+ !g !p au+ a?  w+++ v++(-) C++
mbutter@tower.clark.net    |UL++++$ P+>++++ L++>++++ 3 N+++ E--- K-- W---
gaummb@fnma.com            |M-- V-- -po+ Y+ t++ 5++ jx R++ G' tv+++ b+++ !D
#include <std_disclaimer.h>|B-- e* u*@ h---- f* r+++ !n y** GeekCode v2.1

On Tue, 13 Feb 1996, Mark Schuldenfrei wrote:

> Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 10:07:50 -0500 (EST)
> From: Mark Schuldenfrei <schuldy@abel.MATH.HARVARD.EDU>
> To: Chuck Graves <chuck_graves@mail.hq.faa.gov>
> Cc: cturner@smtp.cnsy-ian.navy.mil, atlantia-l@netcom.com
> Subject: Re: Re[2]: Communications Decency Act (CDA) and the SCA
> 
>        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. 
> 
> You are missing several things.  If the material is "indecent" (for which
> there is not yet a legal standard) and it is accessed by a minor, there
> could be trouble.
> 
> Given even that I am a pro-civil-liberties person, I admit that it is
> unlikely that any particular post will lead to prosecution.  At least while
> the head of the Justice department reports to a Democrat like Clinton.
>        
>        Frankly, no one has taken away your right to privately post whatever 
>        you damn well please.
> 
> Not clear yet.
>        
>        And checking the content of a private post is tantamount to opening 
>        your private mail. Nasty business without a court order.
> 
> Also not clear.  If you send email to a minor that is "indecent", you could
> be in trouble.
>        
>        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.)
> 
> It has happened, however.
>        
>        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^)
> 
> Are you familiar with the Thomases, and the Amateur Action BBS?  It is
> startinlgy similar to what you suggest.  They were convicted.
> 
> They ran a BBS system in California, which sold porography electronically.
> They checked for age and address, and accepted credit cards.  They were
> charged locally with obscenity, and acquited.  It was not past the
> "Community Standards" of California.
> 
> A Postal Inspector in TENNESSEE downloaded material, and had them charged
> locally.  It was considered a violation of Community Standards in Tennesee,
> and they were jailed.
> 
> Check out http://www.epic.org/free_speech/censorship/us_v_thomas.html for
> more information on the status of their appeal.  I am also sure that if you
> don't have web access, you could search out something at ftp.eff.org for
> file transfer.  Their appeal was denied.
> 
> 	Tibor
>