cryptoanarchy.wiki

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!

1995-02-08 - Re: Effects of S.314 (Communications Decency Act)

Header Data

From: Samuel Kaplin <skaplin@mirage.skypoint.com>
To: “L. McCarthy” <lmccarth@ducie.cs.umass.edu>
Message Hash: a3d07b63f1be860ea13dd5c0dd73ee8688289acfa6973580f3b12aa10f599975
Message ID: <Pine.SV4.3.91.950208011435.25409B-100000@mirage.skypoint.com>
Reply To: <199502080649.BAA02589@ducie.cs.umass.edu>
UTC Datetime: 1995-02-08 07:24:13 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 7 Feb 95 23:24:13 PST

Raw message

From: Samuel Kaplin <skaplin@mirage.skypoint.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 95 23:24:13 PST
To: "L. McCarthy" <lmccarth@ducie.cs.umass.edu>
Subject: Re: Effects of S.314 (Communications Decency Act)
In-Reply-To: <199502080649.BAA02589@ducie.cs.umass.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.91.950208011435.25409B-100000@mirage.skypoint.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




On Wed, 8 Feb 1995, L. McCarthy wrote:

> The battle over "obscenity" has been fought long and hard.
> 
> "Indecency" seems a remarkably nebulous term (and, of course, ludicrously
> Victorian). I'd be interested in seeing a legal definition, and alarmed if
> there isn't one (yet).

Last I heard, the Supreme Court had never made a ruling on this. They 
copped out and left it up to "Community Standards." This is partially why 
the AA bbs case was sucessfuly prosecuted in another state.

> Don't even get me started on the "nudity" portion. I'm sure Jesse Helms is
> already licking his lips over this one.

Under the new legislation, might this not be illegal? ;)

On another note, I mailed Stanton McClandish to find out what EFF's 
position is on this. I tried browsing their archives, but lots of stuff 
seems to have vanished from there.

Sam




Sam

Thread