|
Bill, that last line isn't fact, but editorial opinion.
The problem with this case was that it was pre-emptive. NCSF v Gonzales, not the other way around. I doubt that the high court would touch this with a ten foot pole until these is an actual case in hand with judgements coming up the pipe. Just challenging a law based on theory and not actual happenings is VERY difficult indeed.
It leaves open the interpretation of which community would come into play to judge the material - the place where the content is produced / published (the company), where the material is hosted, or where the material is viewed.
Further, they would then also have to make the determination of who imported the material into the jurisdiction. Is a web server an active sender (similar to mail) or just an outpost that people pick stuff up at (like buying a magazine in one place and driving it into the next county). Beyond that, there also is the issue of actual material - the bits and bytes sent in non-linear packets (via IP protocol, where packets can arrive out of order and such), and re-assembled at the other end back in sequence. Did the website send obscene material, or was the obscene material manufactured and assembled on the receiving computer? Would the bits and bytes by themselves have been obscene?
Again, without an actual case, an actual prosecution, and actual court judgements, the supreme court is usually very loath to get involved.
Alex
|