From: Mac Norton <mnorton@cavern.uark.edu>
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 08:18:06 +0800
To: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Subject: Re: Courts strike down New York and Georgia Net-censorship laws
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.95.970620165732.11215G-100000@well.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.96.970620185932.6841D-100000@cavern.uark.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



I consider Dan an expert in the area, myself, and agree with most of
his thinking on the subject.  Defamation law is 1A-involved, so maybe
not an apt comparison.  It's subject to a national, not community,
standard in that regard, unlike obscenity.

On the other hand, while states actually have constitutionally 
enshrined authority over liquor, there is Healey v. The Beer
Institute, cite I can't remember.
MacN 

On Fri, 20 Jun 1997, Declan McCullagh wrote:

> Pardon me as I muddle through this --
> 
> Defamation law looks to local communities to define
> things like reputation. What about huge Internet
> communities? What about the distinction between public
> and private figures?
> 
> Wouldn't an even-handed application of the commerce
> clause stop states from banning child porn or passing
> libel/defamation laws for the Net?
> 
> Though I agree that no court would strike down a child
> porn law on commerce clause grounds...
> 
> Dan Burk has written much about this topic, and I'm
> planning to read up on it over the weekend. One of his
> law review articles came up during oral arguments before
> Judge Preska in NYC.
> 
> -Declan
> 
> 
> On Fri, 20 Jun 1997, Mac Norton wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 20 Jun 1997, Steve Schear wrote:
> > 
> > > >But the rulings differ in important ways. Manhattan's
> > > >Judge Preska did not answer whether the New York law
> > > >violated the First Amendment, saying she was going to
> > > >wait for the U.S. Supreme Court's to rule on the
> > > >Communications Decency Act. She said, however, that
> > > >she didn't *need to answer* that question to strike
> > > >down the law since it violated the U.S. Constitution's
> > > >ban on states attempts to regulate commerce outside
> > > >their borders.
> > > 
> > > Might this also mean that states attempting to restrict Internet gaming
> > > might similarly be restrained?
> > 
> > Not necessarily, and that's ilustrative of one of the problems with this
> > decision on Commerce Clause grounds.  Is child porn, like other articles
> > of "commerce", generic across state lines, or is it subject to a Miller
> > "community standard"?  Same for the "harmful to minors" standard?
> > MacN
> >   
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
>