Massachusetts Bids To Restrict Internet Indecency

Remember the Communications Decency Act? Enacted 1996, found unconstitutional 1997. Or its successor attempt to reduce discourse on the Internet to what is suitable for 8-year-olds, the Child Online Protection Act? Invalidated 2003. Seven state laws attempting to restrict Internet content on grounds of decency have been struck down. Despite all this, Massachusetts has now added a couple of paragraphs to its (traditionally bricks-and-mortar) indecency law that applies a "harmful to minors" test to Internet content. The ACLU of Massachusetts and others have brought suit to block the law, which went into effect on July 11. Coincidentally, today a US appeals court tossed out the FCC's indecency policy.

Comments

Re:Mature

[geekoid]

"it's those damn bible-thumping conservatism.."

there fixed it.

Re:Mature

[ElectricTurtle]

Sorry, that doesn't wash. While it is possible to become intelligent without the internet, the principle is common to both the internet and to books (and it is nearly impossible to become intelligent without both). Because the principle is ultimately the pursuit of knowledge and excellence, the format should be immaterial. If somebody pursues knowledge through books, they should, if given the chance, naturally do so through the internet as well with equal if not greater enthusiasm (and vice versa).

Your argument about 'given potentials' is a strawman because it has nothing to do with what I was talking about, which was potential generally. I was not arguing and do not argue that unless one pursues all fields they are somehow wasting themselves. 'The internet' is not some specialized realm only for doctors or programmers or artists or lawyers or what-have-you. It is a completely open realm for basically all facets of human endeavor. If nothing therein is pursued, that is incontrovertibly a waste, unless of course one aspires to nothing.