Re: Communications Decency Act (off topic - kind of)

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

> Let's not be more divisive than Congress is.  Yes, a majority of Republicans
> backed the bill.  But, IMNSHO, the real description of those that backed it
> is not Republican or Democrat - it's *Ignorant*.  Or Anti-American.

A majority of Democrats supported the bill, also.

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 Thu, 15 Feb 1996, Terry L. Neill wrote:

> Date: Thu, 15 Feb 96 11:11:51 PST
> From: Terry L. Neill <Neilltl@ptsc.slg.eds.com>
> Cc: atlantia-l@netcom.com
> Subject: Communications Decency Act (off topic - kind of)
> 
> 
> >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.
> 
> and Michael Limner, esq responded:
> >Thats right.  And 'sexual explict' is very vauge.  The standards are 
> >being taken acroos the board, thus, the most restrictive apply.
> 
> The law, as I understand it, does not say 'sexually explicit' it says '
> indecent.'  Indecent is a broader term.  One can be indecent without being
> sexually explicit.
> 
> So, if we discuss clan bluefeather on this list, and a minor is subscribed
> to it, that can be termed 'indecent.'
> 
> Discussing abortion, gay rights, painting nude pictures, underwear,
> descriptions of injuries or surgical procedures, non-Christian religion,
> even the news(!) can be considered 'indecent.'  Better not discuss those
> topics if we don't have an age statement from every subscriber.  Sorry, kids.
>  We can't discuss topics any person in the US may condsider indecent in
> front of you.  You'll all have to un-subscribe or we'll have to not discuss
> those things.
> 
> So, how's the weather in your area?
> 
> <did you all detect that sarcasm?>
> 
> 
> >>      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).
> 
> It affects private posts as well, not just ones to a list.  If I send a steamy
> private e-mail to my spouse or boy/girlfriend, and it is read by a minor:
> bingo! A violation of the law.  Scary, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> >>      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.
> 
> 
> Let's not be more divisive than Congress is.  Yes, a majority of Republicans
> backed the bill.  But, IMNSHO, the real description of those that backed it
> is not Republican or Democrat - it's *Ignorant*.  Or Anti-American.
> 
> Do you realize that this means, taken to a not-very-exteme conclusion, that
> 17 year olds can't discuss birth or birth control on the net?
> 
> Argh!
> 
>         - Anarra
> 
>