Slashdot Mirror
Supreme Court Rejects Free-Speech Challenge
zookie writes "According to this Reuters article, the U.S. Supreme Court has essentially upheld a Virginia law that says public employees can't access sexually explicit material from state computers. The challenge to the law was from several professors saying that the law prevented them from doing their research. I'm curious what Slashdot readers think about the effects of this ruling from the highest court in the land -- does this bode poorly for future challenges to laws censoring the Internet?" Keep in mind that Virginia already has the usual abilities to fire someone goofing off at work - the only thing this law affects is employees who have legitimate reasons to view sexually explicit art, poetry, etc. as a part of their job. If you have a sexual disorder and plan on going to a Virginia university hospital, perhaps you should reconsider - your doctor is barred by law from researching your disorder online. The first decision in the case, that was favorable to the ACLU et al., is available.
The decision that upheld the Virginia law (by the 4th Circuit) (which the Supreme Court declined to review) is available at:h tml.
http://www.law.emory.edu/4circuit/feb99/981481.p.
There, the 4th Circuit states:
"But, the Act does not prohibit all access by state employees to such materials, for a state agency head may give permission for a state employee to access such information on computers owned or leased by the Commonwealth if the agency head deems such access to be required in connection with a bona fide research project or other undertaking."
So it looks like research hospitals are still allowed to access materials, as long as they get authorization.
From the article:
[Virginia Attorney General Mark Earley] said state employees did not have a First Amendment right to disregard the law and decide for themselves whether sexually explicit material was required for their professional, employment-related research and writing needs.
Is he saying what I think he's saying? Does it have to be enumerated in the constitution for this guy to believe that people can decide for themselves what they need to access for their work? I hope he was simply misquoted, because that statement is bad in more ways than I can count.
Sexually explicit is defined as any depiction or description of ``sexual excitement,'' ``sexual conduct,'' or ``a lewd exhibition of nudity.''
Sexual excitement,conduct or a LEWD exhibition of nudity.
I don't really see proctology being exciting, sexual or lewd.
Nor are STD's, pregnancy, or any of the other countless legitmate things we can look up on the 'net that have some minor connection to sex.
Be realistic, guys. PLEASE.
Now, as for, oh, the study of adult art, or porn through the ages (Digression - why, oh, why do you spell it pr0n? )
Professors or other state employees must get written permission from their agency heads before accessing sexually explicit material.
There ya go. No longer a problem, and its in the article that is linked from slashdot.
I can't see a hospital DENYING permission for a doctor to look up penile dysfunction on the web. And while I can see a university refusing to let a professor look up porn, its probably because he's being contraversial. And then he can look it up From Home. Just like the rest of us.
Poor little no puppy toe!
http://quiz.ravenblack.net/blood.pl?3357354385
From reading the article, it appears that the Supreme Court declined to review the case. This does not mean that the Supreme Court agrees with the lower court. The Supreme Court declines to hear (denies certiori) most of the cases that are appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court can only hear a limited number of cases every year, and there are many reasons why they may decline to hear a case.
This might be relevant if doctors needed to "research" your disorder on porn sites. As it is, this strikes me as Just Another Slashdot Editor Overreaction (tm). Aside from the fact that I'm quite sure that doctors have plenty of off-line material at hand, I'm not sure that www.sexualdisorderfetish.com is the best place to gather information anyway.
Why michael chose to put in a jab at the law over doctors, rather than a legitimate gripe about professors (perhaps) being unable research/writing on pornography or some other sexually explicit topic, is beyond me.
It really isn't much. The Supremes just declined to hear the case. They decline cases all the time because of the large number that reach them.
More importantly, the Virginia case was brought by state employees, not state citizens. Certainly governments can control their employees with means they cannot use on the general population. They give some pay raises, others not.
It would be more interesting if this were a case of citizens who wanted to surf/post pr0n at their local library. In my mind, that would be a clearer case of 1st Amendment free-speech rights.
How recursively ironic is that? This alone should be enough to strike down this law. I guess the defense won't be using state computers to defend their position.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
...is another man's research. I did read the article. Here's what it says:
"Sexually explicit is defined as any depiction or description of 'sexual excitement,' `sexual conduct,' or `a lewd exhibition of nudity.'"
I can see how that would pose problems for all sorts of people attempting to access material for legitimate academic work. Literature and art, for example, often have enough sexual content to qualify under those rules.
And then what about researching sexuality and pornography? What if one wanted to write a paper about sexuality and the Internet?
Sexuality is as legitimate a subject for academia as anything else. It's absolutely ridiculous that college professors should have to ask their department heads to sign permission slips before they read anything explicit. It's just as ridiculous that they should have to get permission before giving academic assignments which deal with sexual matters to adult students.
As a former computer lab monitor, I'm all for nobody looking at porn in the lab, but this decision goes beyond that.
I couldn't agree more. And while we're at it, maybe geometry and trig should be taught as an alternative philosophy as well - don't they depend on an inherent Euclidean world view? (well, at least in high school they do). Civics and government as well - you can bet all those wacky laws against murder in this country and that whole "We the People" thing are based on an inherent world view. "inherent world view" - wtf were you thinking!? Perhaps I've been trolled....
Everything comes from an "inherent world view", of course. The theory of evolution is currently the best way to explain the current state of life on this planet and make verifiable predictions about events. It's based on an "inherent world view" of deterministic causality, testability, and verifiability, and the value judgement that a predictable universe is better than the alternative. Unfortunately for those who are offended by the directions that science leads, the "inherent world view" of the scientific method has consistently correctly explained more and more of the world since it first began to be employed, and can reasonably be expected to continue to do so in the future. You can call it an "inherent world view" all you want, but it works better than the other current alternatives, and most people (or at least those without wacked-out "inherent world views") like what works. It is a tremendous disservice to children or any thinking being to deny them such an education, just because people (many in Kansas, apparently) feel threatened by the closest approximation of the truth we have yet been able to determine.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore, the one who signed this into law, may well be the Attorney General by the end of Bush's term. There is a lot of well-credited speculation that Bush plans to put Ashcroft on the Supreme Court once a spot opens up, and by then, Gilmore's term in Virginia (we have a one-term limit) will be up. For those of you who are unaware, Gilmore is an ass. While I like Ashcroft's stance on crypto, there are a lot of other issues where he's simply draconian. As moderate as Bush seems, many of the people around him, the ones who will tell him what to do, are rather far right. If this election said anything, it's that America is fairly balanced in opinion. These folks won't represent the will of the people. They will represent their own interests.
Congressional elections are two years away. Let's get to work.
WARNING: there is a trojan on your
[D]oes this bode poorly for future challenges to laws censoring the Internet?
I would have to say, "No." It neither bodes favorably nor badly. The Supreme Court didn't pass on any legal question at all -- they simply refused certiorari (to review the case). They neither upheld nor overturned they law -- they just refused to take it up. This is a very different thing altogether.
Now, reading the statute, it provides only that, "[e]xcept to the extent required in conjunction with a bona fide, agency-approved research project or other agency approved undertaking, no agency employee shall utilize agency-owned or agency-leased computer equipment to access, download, print or store any information infrastructure files or services having sexually explicit content."
In other words, it is just an acceptable use provision for government agency employees.
No doubt, this is a stupid law, and it is bad public policy. But is it unconstitutional? Without the benefit of reviewing the briefs and record below, I am loathe to jump to such conclusions.