jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US (The Beach Bum) (10/04/88)
In article <9644@cup.portal.com> Ringworld-Engineer@cup.portal.com writes: >Ok, all you alt.sex-ers. Time to call your congressman, or we may have to >kiss alt.sex goodbye. > >>SENATE PASSES ANTI-PORN BILL THAT COULD TARGET COMPUTERS >> >> The Senate this week unanimously passed a bill that would bar computer >>distribution of child pornography and outlaw dial-a-porn telephone services. > >Other than the fact that certain parts of this seem to be in violation of the >first ammendment, I'm very worried that it passed 97-0, which implies it is >not a partisan issue. First to dismiss the "First Amendment" nonsense. It is nonsense. Pornography is not protected under the First Amendment. Your complaining about the bill is covered. So you may continue to complain. ;-) My first question is, do any of the legal-beagles think this bill is aimed at things such as alt.sex? I don't have any qualms with dumping alt.sex if it is - and at the same time I am somewhat concerned considering I feed alt.sex into Michigan. [ thus, so my thinking goes, making this an interstate matter and more liking to fall under federal jurisdiction ] So, the question is, do I dump alt.sex? Or just ignore it? -- John F. Haugh II (jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US) HASA, "S" Division "Why waste negative entropy on comments, when you could use the same entropy to create bugs instead?" -- Steve Elias
jnw@shades.cis.ufl.edu (Joseph N. Wilson) (10/05/88)
In article <7507@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US> jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US (The Beach Bum) writes: > >My first question is, do any of the legal-beagles think this bill is aimed >at things such as alt.sex? I don't have any qualms with dumping alt.sex if >it is ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^ And I suppose that if oral sex or some other activity that you enjoy is being targeted by some other bill, you have no qualms with dumping that activity as well? joe wilson (jnw@shades.cis.ufl.edu)
ooblick@eddie.MIT.EDU (Mikki Barry) (10/06/88)
jfh writes: >First to dismiss the "First Amendment" nonsense. It is nonsense. Pornography >is not protected under the First Amendment. Your complaining about the bill >is covered. So you may continue to complain. ;-) I beg to differ with you. There is a huge body of common law based on the first amendment that deals with pornography. In fact, the "legal tests" for defining something as pornography are based on balancing the first amendment with community standards. So we *are* dealing with a first amendment issue. >My first question is, do any of the legal-beagles think this bill is aimed >at things such as alt.sex? I don't have any qualms with dumping alt.sex if >it is - and at the same time I am somewhat concerned considering I feed >alt.sex into Michigan. [ thus, so my thinking goes, making this an >interstate matter and more liking to fall under federal jurisdiction ] If you're not talking about child porn and/or 900 numbers (or whatever else they've decided to legislate about this time), you should be just fine. The first amendment doesn't cover child porn as it is a crime. However, 900 numbers? That could be a different story.
grimlok@hubcap.UUCP (Grimlok) (10/07/88)
From article <7507@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US>, by jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US (The Beach Bum): > In article <9644@cup.portal.com> Ringworld-Engineer@cup.portal.com writes: >> >>>SENATE PASSES ANTI-PORN BILL THAT COULD TARGET COMPUTERS > > First to dismiss the "First Amendment" nonsense. It is nonsense. Pornography > is not protected under the First Amendment. Your complaining about the bill > is covered. So you may continue to complain. ;-) First off, I really hate it when the Legislative bracnh of government takes advantage 1) of the President's inability to use a line-item veto (not that Reagan would have vetoed this item) and 2) their ability to graft totally irrelevent amendments onto a 'certain-to-be-passed' bill. (What I am talking about here is the graphic depiction of sexual matters between consenting adults -- NO CHILDREN ALLOWED) Now, my understanding of pornography in the United States is that it technically doesn't exist. Granted, certain films, books, magazines, what-have-you have been found to be obscene, that is, serving to incite only the prurient interests without any social, political, artistic, or educational benefits. But these are few and far between and are hardly enough to compose any threat to society. People who insist on saying that pornography is not covered by the First Amendment fail to understand this point. The line between erotic films and obscene films (films here means videos, films, magazines...) is sometimes a fine one. Each of us does have the right to view whatever we please as long as our 'community' has not through due process of the law found it to be obscene. That last part is important. Due process of the law...for each and every item that falls under the heading of pornography/erotica...individually. One more thing, who is anyone else to tell what I can and can't do within my own home--as long as what I do isn't hurting _anyone_. I'm not out there trying to force people to watch the Playboy Channel, why is there a horde of people tryingto force me to not watch it? I always felt that my rights stopped at the end of my nose... Why didn't our founding fathers have the foresight to include the right to privacy/be left alone in the Bil of Rights? Sigh...
cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (10/07/88)
In article <3161@hubcap.UUCP>, grimlok@hubcap.UUCP (Grimlok) writes: > From article <7507@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US>, by jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US (The Beach Bum): > > In article <9644@cup.portal.com> Ringworld-Engineer@cup.portal.com writes: > > First to dismiss the "First Amendment" nonsense. It is nonsense. Pornography > > is not protected under the First Amendment. Your complaining about the bill > > is covered. So you may continue to complain. ;-) > > Now, my understanding of pornography in the United States is that it > technically doesn't exist. Granted, certain films, books, magazines, > what-have-you have been found to be obscene, that is, serving to incite > only the prurient interests without any social, political, artistic, or > educational benefits. But these are few and far between and are hardly > enough to compose any threat to society. Not quite true. There have been a number of decisions over the last 30 years on the subject of obscenity, and they haven't all agreed. The most recent decisions by the Supreme Court on this subject have left the door open for the definition of "obscenity" to be based on local community standards (whatever that means). Obscenity can be prohibited (though I don't think it should be). The question before the Supreme Court has been, over the last decade or so, not, "Can obscenity be prohibited?" but "What defines obscene?" > One more thing, who is anyone else to tell what I can and can't do > within my own home--as long as what I do isn't hurting _anyone_. I'm not > out there trying to force people to watch the Playboy Channel, why is > there a horde of people tryingto force me to not watch it? I always felt > that my rights stopped at the end of my nose... For the same reason that you aren't allowed to hire someone under any conditions that you both agree to -- someone is convinced that the external effects are so severe, as to be a hazard to the rest of the society. Capitalism is a private act between consenting adults -- just like you watching the Playboy Channel. A lot of people out there are convinced there are risks that accrue to the rest of us, and therefore require restrictions on individual freedom. (In both cases, of course, there may well be side effects to the society as a whole -- but in both cases, the meddlesome ones in our society use this as a excuse to run people's lives). > Why didn't our founding fathers have the foresight to include the right > to privacy/be left alone in the Bil of Rights? Sigh... Actually, they did -- the Ninth Amendment specifies that powers not granted explicitly are reserved to the people or states: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Unfortunately, the courts found excuses to use the so-called "elastic clause" of the Constitution to expand the powers of the Federal Govern- ment, and the State Constitutions weren't sufficiently restrictive of state power. -- Clayton E. Cramer ..!ames!pyramid!kontron!optilin!cramer
dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) (10/11/88)
In article <0732.AA0732@salem1> brianop@salem1.UUCP (Brian McBee) writes: >In article <7507@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US> jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US writes: >> Pornography is not protected under the First Amendment. > >Unfortunately, this is true. The constitution is whatever the Supreme Court >says it is, and they have decided pornography isn't covered. Actually, although the Supreme Court claims that pornography isn't protected by the First Amendment, some things to remember are: o The fact remains that the Constitution says that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press. This is a *fact* that is not subject to interpretation. The current interpretation of the First Amendment is the one that is currently *enforced*, but this doesn't change what the Constitution *says*, only what is *enforced*. As times change, what is enforced will continue to change. o The Supreme Court has not clearly defined pornography. The best definition I have is that pornography is anything that offends anybody who can convince a judge to agree. This interpretation, too, will change as judges/lawyers/arguments/public perception/ published literature/juries change with time. Since this argument really belongs in misc.legal, follow-ups are directed there. -- Rahul Dhesi UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!dhesi
brianop@salem1.UUCP (Brian McBee) (10/20/88)
In article <7507@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US> jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US writes: > Pornography is not protected under the First Amendment. Unfortunately, this is true. The constitution is whatever the Supreme Court says it is, and they have decided pornography isn't covered. They could just as easily decide YOUR opinions weren't covered. Sad but true. Personally, I think the first amendment covers ALL forms of (non-violent<=>non-coercive) expression, but my opinion doesn't mean diddly. My advice: do whatever you want, but do it discretely (sp?). They aren't peeking in your windows yet! -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- What the eye beholds CI$: 72406.1363 And the heart covets PLINK: Brianop Let the hand boldly sieze! UUCP: uunet!tektronix!tessi!agora!salem1!brianop -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Look at that path! Talk about being in the sticks...well connected I aint.