Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Domains

Domain: aclu.org

Stories and comments across the archive that link to aclu.org.

Comments · 1,753

  1. I beg to differ by Gleef · · Score: 1 · on Anti-Smut email law upheld

    Cassius wrote:

    Whenever someone is in court using Freedom of Speech as a defense, invariably its a test to see how young a girl they can stick in their magazines.

    Very little Freedom of Speech litigation has to do with "young girls" or magazines. Check out these suits, just from a quick check on the ACLU website:

    http://www.aclu.org/news/1999/n012299b. html
    http://www.aclu.org/news/1999/n012899a. html
    http://www.aclu.org/news/1999/n021299a. html
    http://www.aclu.org/news/1999/n030599a. html
    http://www.aclu.org/action/flag106.html

    Whether you agree with the ACLU's stand or not, this isn't about defending child pornography, it's about protecting our right to speak out. Check out http://www.aclu.org/library/pbp10.html for more information.

  2. I beg to differ by Gleef · · Score: 1 · on Anti-Smut email law upheld

    Cassius wrote:

    Whenever someone is in court using Freedom of Speech as a defense, invariably its a test to see how young a girl they can stick in their magazines.

    Very little Freedom of Speech litigation has to do with "young girls" or magazines. Check out these suits, just from a quick check on the ACLU website:

    http://www.aclu.org/news/1999/n012299b. html
    http://www.aclu.org/news/1999/n012899a. html
    http://www.aclu.org/news/1999/n021299a. html
    http://www.aclu.org/news/1999/n030599a. html
    http://www.aclu.org/action/flag106.html

    Whether you agree with the ACLU's stand or not, this isn't about defending child pornography, it's about protecting our right to speak out. Check out http://www.aclu.org/library/pbp10.html for more information.

  3. Why is the ACLU involved? by Evan927 · · Score: 1 · on Virgina Criminalizes spam, ACLU against it

    I think you guys are missing the point. The article said "malicious spammers". Exactly what does that mean? My guess is the the ACLU feels that the term "malicious spammers" is far too general, and is atempting to have the bill modified.

    If someone spams your mailbox to the point where the server drops, it's the same as dropping a cherry-bomb in a regular mailbox. They're both against the law.

    Junk mail, however, is protected by the 1st amendment. Therefore, if you get one of the annoying messages from some porn site, it's legal (provided they don't send you porn!).

    The real question comes down to where we draw the line. Spaming could be seen as a breach of personal privcay, denial-of-service, and other things.

    I suggest anyone who wants to know why the ACLU is against this law visit their website at:
    http://www.aclu.org