Slashdot Mirror
Supreme Court Declines to Hear Obscenity Case
Justice is reporting that Monday the Supreme Court declined to hear the obscenity case of Nitke v. Gonzales. From the article: "Even in our federal system of government, the law concerning obscenity is a legal oddity. A photograph that in New York would be considered protected speech under the First Amendment could in Alabama be considered obscene, making the photographer and distributors subject to felony charges. That's a consequence of the Supreme Court's landmark 1973 case, Miller v. California, in which the court ruled that obscenity was essentially a subjective judgment, and called for prosecutors, judges and juries to apply 'community standards' in determining what speech was obscene and what was protected. In the age of the Internet, a new issue has been raised - if something considered free speech in New York is accessible in Alabama, where it's considered obscene, what standard should be used? By rejecting the case, the Supreme Court has left that question open."
"We can get all we want on the office computers" remarked Justice Clarence Thomas.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
This is where Slashdot needs to add a SCARY +1 moderation. Scary is a positive moderation for insightful thinking that we should all afraid could actually happen -- and us all be worse off for it if it does.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
So who's breaking the law? The person with the computer, the ISP who the computer's connect to, the owner of the pipe bringing the "obscenity" across the state border, the ISP who's providing the bandwidth to the originating server, or the person who's providing the images (even if they're legal in the state where this person lives/hosts from)?
They are all purveyors of filth. They all need to be jailed. And the makers of the cabling, because they knowingly created a medium to distribute filth. Anyone involved in subnetting because once again, they knowingly have created a worldwide filth network. IBM for making filth viewing screens that some call computers. now that i've settled that, can someone help me download some good filth.
They should judge within Internet Community standards, so if the picture is not obscene enough for the internet it should be taken offline.
"It's obscene!"
Why should the Supreme Court waste time deciding who's responsible for consuming prohibited information when they're busy spending the afternoon with Anna Nicole Smith?
--
make install -not war
That effects kids
Dude, that's not where kids come from.