OK, I need to know...

[Jim]

Originally Posted by Useless Warrior

I was discussing this with the wife, since she is just slightly more sensible than me, and you know what came up? Al Capone. Yes, Al Capone. If the government was forced to jail a notorious gangster, bootlegger, and murderer for income tax evasion/fraud, then how unlikely is it that they would go after an otherwise untouchable child pornographer by nabbing him/her on improper record keeping? You'd think they must have someone in mind and I seriously doubt that it's a lowly webmaster.

I fear 2257 prosecution the way I fear NY's law against driving while on a cell phone. No one gets pulled over for that and it's pretty blatantly ignored. Of course, I don't own a cell phone.

Exactly useless...
They will not come after us. They will go after those that deserve it if they go after anyone at all. The last thing they want is for their test case to be thrown out.

[Jim]

And, I still like that more people believe it is hype and nothing more than think it is a real threat.

I almost think it may be time for a special radio show with Greenie and myself to discuss both sides. If he wants to do it, I will do a special radio show.

[Jim]

People need to know the history of the government going after us. People need to know that it was a democratic congress and democratic president that came after us. People need to know that the old guys on the Supreme Court are still there. The ones that said, the last place for freedom of speech is the internet, the government will not harm it. Damn, it...I am going to find that case. It was Reno Vs, ACLU. But there are just so many cases with the same name, it's hard to find. Somebody look for it and post a link if you find it.

[Jim]

I found it
http://www.epic.org/free_speech/CDA/
This was going to shut us all down. Read the Supreme Court Decision.

[madleinx]

Thanks for that link, Jim. Very interesting, esp. in how it could apply to the whole forced .xxx domain issue. Good stuff!

[xxxjay]

The secondary producer thing will never stick.

[neticule]

Originally Posted by Jim

I found it
http://www.epic.org/free_speech/CDA/
This was going to shut us all down. Read the Supreme Court Decision.

I really enjoyed reading that. Took me a while to find it, but here it is:

Cutting through the acronyms and argot that littered the hearing
testimony, the Internet may fairly be regarded as a never-ending
worldwide conversation. The Government may not, through the CDA,
interrupt that conversation. As the most participatory form of mass
speech yet developed, the Internet deserves the highest protection from
governmental intrusion.

True it is that many find some of the speech on the Internet to
be offensive, and amid the din of cyberspace many hear discordant voices
that they regard as indecent. The absence of governmental regulation of
Internet content has unquestionably produced a kind of chaos, but as one
of plaintiffs' experts put it with such resonance at the hearing: What
achieved success was the very chaos that the Internet is. The strength
of the Internet is that chaos.

Just as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so the strength of our
liberty depends upon the chaos and cacophony of the unfettered speech the
First Amendment protects.

For these reasons, I without hesitation hold that the CDA is
unconstitutional on its face.

---------------------

I would love to hear something along those lines again in regards to 2257!