Slashdot Mirror
Anti-Smut email law upheld
cswiii writes "The Supreme Court has ruled that keeping obscene language out of email, in certain circumstances, does not violate freedom of speech.
" Part of this law is a hold over from the CDA - in terms of what could and could not be sent. In this case, it's "obscence material". ApolloMedia, owners of annoy.com had originally the case against this. In this situation, the Court upheld the ruling of a CA District Court.
Flaming directed toward newsgroups will not be affected.
You have the right not to receive sexually oriented mail in your mail box. And it is illegal for someone to mail you porn if you told them to stop. Additionally, if you fill out a form at your local post office you can 'block' such mailings. It's only logical that this has been extended to email.
The USPS has delivered spam for decades too.
Laws like this are all part of The Plan to define everyone to be a criminal in one way or another. There are many laws passed even though they are totally unenforcable. Wheather it's people not paying local sales tax on out-of-state mail order/phone/internet purchases, to emailing smut, or what have you, it allows the gov't to swoop down and whack people whenever they want with the legal justification to back it up. Isn't it amazing that on the news you see people with no criminal histories suddenly indicted on 300 different counts of [whatever]. It's The Plan in action.
Suppose a web site like whitehouse.com is cracked and a single, but obvious child porn image is added to the site. the HEIGHT and WIDTH tags are set to 1 and 1 so most browsers display the image at 1 pixel by 1 pixel so it goes unnoticed by 99.99% of the public. Next I turn you in to police saying there is child porn on your PC. And sure enough, there's the image at full size in your netscape cache. Should you be prosecuted? And of course, there's the sites who have had their hardware seized because of child porn found in newsposts that were just passing through their site (but stored on their local hardware).
I had the impression that only visual works can be considered 'obscene'. So what's an obscene email?
When you get set up by someone with a grudge against you or maybe just targeted at random, you won't be complaining the flaws in the law right?
No, goober, I'm not advocating legalizing porn. I advocate common carrier status for ISPs, although once stuff gets onto the cache directory in your hard drive, clearing it out yourself regularly is the only way to be safe. Look through your cache dir. You'll be surprised at what's there. You'll see stuff you swear you've never downloaded or seen before.
I wonder, :)
If you can fill out a form to stop Porn being delivered to you, can you fill out a form to stop snail-mail Spam?
Of course I wouldn't get any mail anymore, but I would have the nice warm fussy feeling that I helped save two or three trees that week...
Mail should be encrypted anyway with PGP or GPG so the government can't get upset. If the person who receives the mail gets upset he is at fault for descrambling it.
www.PGPi.com
http://www.d.shuttle.de/isil/crypt/index.html
for gpg?
There are several things you can do to slow down the flood of snail-mail spam:
Here is a link to get you started: Opting Out
Good Luck!
I thought all it meant was now you have to learn to flame without using filthy dirty language directed at a person (annoying, harrassing). You can still flame, just have to be more literate about it. Having to use something other than curse words and derogative sexual references will shut down most of the idiot flamers. Maybe flaming will become a literate art form out of necessity.
Only the foolish and stupid, regardless of race, creed, or color - which is what we are at base defending - believe that history will never repeat itself "this time." Of course, the foolish and the stupid have a very long, distinguished list of colleagues.
If there is an exception, IT WILL BE USED. If there is a limit, IT WILL BE ENFORCED, and not necesarily in the ways the framers of the limits intended. The ACLU may be fighting some fights that they can't win, and they may be fighting some fights we don't want them to win. But at least they're defending your right to sit there and make snide comments. What have you done lately?
Relax? Certainly. If you think that it will not inconvenience you at all to be charged, then relax.
Please note I didn't say _convicted_. In this country, in this world of media trials and 11 month court backlogs and 3-year appeals, being charged is as bad as being convicted, in the case of a crime like this. Consider what happens if I claime to be offended and annoyed by your last last sentence, and I manage to get some DA in need of publicity before the next election to charge you under this act. Will you be convicted? Nope, not in a million years. Of course, you'll still be arrested, arraigned, possibly indicted for a jury trial, in which case you'll have to post bond or sit in jail. Then there's the trial itself, for which you'll need a lawyer. And if the judge is a hard case (or if he, too, needs some publicity) he might not just throw the trial out, but actually allow it to proceed, dragging out for weeks or months while the media tallies up the polls on what will sell more ad space and pronounces you guilty or innocent. And, in the end, you'll be aquitted and set free, with your bond returned without interest and a nice smile... oh, what's that? Lost your job? Compensation? Oh, now, don;t be silly, that's not our fault. You should be more careful. Don't try to fight these laws by skating close to the edge, and you won't fall in. After all, just because you've been found innocent doesn't mean anything, where there's smoke there must be fire, so we'll be keeping an eye on you, this is still on your record...
Of course, I'm making this up. It could never happen.
Right?
thanks!
I'll give it a whirl...
Does anyone know how successful this is?
You sound like a member of the silent majority. The people who make atrocities possible. People who participate in causes are the _ONLY_ people who are keeping this world together. How long can the minority support idle, atrophied majority?
dear supreme court,
i would love to write you all a letter but
i wouldnt want to annoy you for fear you would lock me up with all those
dangerous people who smoke joints once a month.
fuck this country, im leaving as soon as i get a degree.
"2) What happens when offending mail crosses international borders? who's jurisdiction is it?"
I wonder if it happens on an unmoderated public mailing list (say a OneList.com list) is the list mom liable?
Also, isn't obsenity defined on a community-by-community basis? Does that mean if I flame someone located in my community I'm not violating the law but if I flame someone in another community I could be in violation?
They just don't get the medium. It should be self-unregulating.
The first Net user found guilty of an online hate crime--where death threats were sent by email to 59 Asian university students--was sentenced to one year in prison today, time that already has been served.
http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,21766,00.html
Note that his mail was sent to a group - it refers to "every one of you". My guess is he cc'd 50+ people. Or maybe it was a mailing list?
I have seen posts about people wanting to shoot people (in jest, but who's to judge?). And there are many flames that are pretty obscene. irc messages are a form of communication too, and everyone knows how subtle and understated they can get.
The main problem stems from the cluelessness of the govt. in cases like this. Many of the scholarly legal officials dealing with these matters obtain their knowledge from such authoritative sources as movies like The Net or War Games, portraying people effortlessly using the net to cause mayhem. Indeed, some proponents of CDA I boasted that they had never been on the internet.
Does flaming 59 people really warrant a year in jail? A random search on usenet might find stronger death threats posted every day.
One likely scenario is that people enforcing justice will actually start using computers, and maybe email. Over time, they will realise the culture of the net, and understand what they are dealing with. Until that happens, there will a few dozen people jailed for harmless emails considered "obscene", "annoying", or whatever the legal standard is.
F U - I'm Swedish and have Freedom of speech and can say what i want.
End of story.
Clockwork Annoyance!
by Clinton Fein
On the rare occasion that we respond to our critics, we feel it worthy to highlight New York Magazine's interpretation of annoy.com. While we are not convinced that the comparison to A Clockwork Orange was intended as a compliment, given their sub-title "'Annoying' Doesn't Quite Capture It - How Low Can You Go?" we take it as one nonetheless. We acknowledge that a component of the vision of annoy.com was indeed inspired by Kubrick's interpretation of Anthony Burgess' A Clockwork Orange. While humbled by the comparison, an analysis of the inspiration and interpretation might provide some insight into why we launched annoy.com, and why we fought Attorney General, Janet Reno, all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States of America.
A Clockwork Orange was nothing short of a genius audio-visual commentary on socio-economics, politics, racism, misogyny, sex and violence and their inter-relationship to social conditioning, behavioral modification and psychological experimentation that is as astute, powerful and frightening today as it was in 1971. Annoy.com, through its hard-hitting commentary and graphical imagery, as well as its sophisticated technology, aspires to educate by highlighting issues in provocative ways that command attention. Whether we are commenting on war, abortion, gun control or intellectual property issues, our focus is to provide a palette upon which digital artists and thinkers can extend the dialog further. Annoy.com is a legal, social and political experiment. So was A Clockwork Orange.
Malcolm McDowell's astounding performance as Alex contributed to the impact the film forcing Kubrick to deal with the unintended copycat violence the film inspired. Censored and banned in a multitude of countries, as were other works of Kubrick such as "Paths of Glory'" and the controversial "Spartacus" and "Lolita," Kubrick was well aware of the impact of censorship and its limitation on expression.
Clockwork Annoyance
The contradictory immersion of purity, pornography, evil and innocence - much like the flashing annoy.com opening images referred to by New York Magazine - are prevalent in Kubrick's interpretation. From the moment protagonist Alex and his droogs imbibe their drug-laced milk solution, and proceed to kick and torture the living hell out of an elderly homeless man, one is given a mere hint at the violence that will follow.
In much the same way, annoy.com presents an idea, whether it pertains to abortion, gun control or many of the socially relevant topics covered by the site without automatically providing a neatly packaged, explanation, apology or resolution. Ideas are not like that. The depiction of something that is offensive or that triggers a response that is disturbing or uncomfortable is a fundamental component of the communication. The expectation that the expression of an idea must adhere to certain standards of contextual disclosure is part of the very 'chill' that annoy.com sought and seeks to extricate itself from. The upsurge in violent and savage massacres in schools, the cowardly bombing of innocent people, be it in Oklahoma, London or Belgrade, or the copycat violence that some, including Kubrick, believe may have resulted from A Clockwork Orange evokes the age-old question of whether life imitates art, or vice-versa. Art, however, can never truly imitate death. Or can it?
Message as a Medium
The depiction of violence, sex or other controversial expression without apology or context is difficult to accept and understand. In a similar fashion, reviled but unmistakably talented filmmaker Leni Riefenstahl helped pioneer a new paradigm of motion picture by refusing to be trapped by the convention of plot to communicate an idea, preferring to explore alternative cinematic devices such as motion manipulation and light. Her films of Hitler's rise to power and of the 1936 Olympic games were hailed as the most successful propaganda movies ever made, and later as among the most terrifying movies ever made. Kubrick's visual references to Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will as the ultimate in extreme violence is an acknowledgement to her construction and a salute to her craft. Both Kubrick and Riefenstahl relished the use of slow or fast motion to convey their powerful imagery. The question is did Leni Riefenstahl create the horror or document it? Did A Clockwork Orange create the violence or imitate it? Is annoy.com the cause or the reflection?
The presentation and amalgamation of conflict, context, definition and conclusion within a short time frame is too easy a solution - too quick a fix - to inspire the depth of thought necessary to understand the broader and subtler implications of the communication. Kubrick understood this and could justify the extreme audiovisual depictions presented from the outset to provide a framework with which to explore the themes long after the film had finished. Similarly, annoy.com's heavy-handed approach expresses themes and ideas in a manner that tends to immediately outrage and shock, often repelling the audience or user before providing a broader picture within which to contextualize the offensive expression and move beyond the initial impressions.
Kubrick's reliance on culturally sophisticated music such as Beethoven to complement his visual barrage of ultra-violence is an interesting juxtaposition. The choreographed savage beating and raping by Alex to the tune of "Singing in the Rain" is horrifically effective. Often the scatological imagery or adolescent vulgarity of expression on annoy.com is juxtaposed with lauded thinkers, poets and writers, ranging from Thomas Paine to John Donne. Serious issues are often fused with humor. The purpose to engage in expression that defies expectation and provokes a reaction by mixing mediums or genres unpredictably. The harmonious intertwining of politically incorrect expression with correctly political fervor. The attempt to foster outrage to alleviate apathy.
Overstating the Obvious
One of the more interesting similarities can be found in the art of overstatement. Annoy.com engages in this technique in order to drive home the illogic of the legislation we challenged and to legally and socially push the envelope. Indeed, the violence in A Clockwork Orange is dramatically overstated including such devices as the use of animation in one sequence, much like the animated images on annoy.com's homepage. Or the bold and literal electrically illuminated "Home" sign that demarcates the home of the political writer that Alex returns to after having been asked to leave the home of his parents. The constant barrage of vulgarity and strong language on annoy.com attempts to reduce the power and impact that social and legal taboos give to the meaning and understanding of words and images to convey thought. Annoy.com's vulgar depictions offend the intellectually elite or politically correct.
Like A Clockwork Orange, annoy.com is often misunderstood in its intentions. Many people see the violence of A Clockwork Orange as gratuitous without being able to understand its social commentary. The themes of gender are another example. In both A Clockwork Orange and on annoy.com, many are so offended by the objectification of women that they are unable to appreciate the liberation inherent in the exploring of objectification by actually objectifying. The same is true of annoy.com's objectification of men.
Kubrick's distrust of government was reflected by his portrayal of the State as a cruel and machine-like nightmare employing the most extreme of measures to shape the thinking of people through social conditioning and mind control experimentation. Annoy.com explored the same concept and attempted to demonstrate its distrust of the government by refusing to rely upon their assurances that the censorship legislation they were implementing and defending was nothing to worry about, instead thwarting such intentions by hauling them before the highest court in the land.
Mind Over Matter
Perhaps the most dangerous and telling similarity lies in the exposure of what happens when the government intervenes in the thinking of its citizens. The State's attempt to shape Alex's thought processes dangerously misfired. Attempting to purge his mind of sex and violence they employed Skinner-like behaviorist theory as a justification to force-feed him violent and sexual imagery. They inextricably associated thoughts of a sexual or violent nature with overwhelming physical illness, unbearable pain and psychological despair. Unfortunately, they inadvertently associated music with the same impulse reaction by an unplanned and unexpected background score of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony accompanying the violent imagery to which they were subjecting him. (A spectacularly frightening scene for anyone wondering what Eyes Wide Shut really means).
The cruelest irony in A Clockwork Orange was not so much the typical scenario of a politician backtracking to take credit for a system of crime prevention, only to reassign blame when it proved a disastrous failure, (and then, of course, taking credit for its demise). The government's attempts to shape thinking by employing methodologies that were not sufficiently planned for, or adequately researched to address the intended objectives, resulted in the ultimate failure. In order to remedy their mistakes, they were forced to recreate the very violent and sexual dysfunction they sought to eradicate to begin with. In this context and for these reasons, annoy.com remains understandably alarmed.
You Are What You See
Kubrick understood, as does annoy.com, for better or worse, whether we like it or not, that sex, violence and hate are instincts that are as base and inextricably linked with our species as eating and drinking. We cannot pretend they don't exist. We cannot pretend that images, words or sounds that elicit thoughts, no matter what they are or what their reactions are intended to provoke, can be wished away, willed away, punished away or legislated away.
Annoy.com, for the most part, has been universally misunderstood. Almost every news item, story, opinion or analysis covering our site and lawsuit, whether legal or based upon our content, has confused or misinterpreted our intentions and motivations. Very few in fact, sought to understand them, by looking a little deeper than what appears on the surface. The graphic sex and violence portrayed by Kubrick in A Clockwork Orange outraged and alienated many as much by the presentation of the content as its meaning. Similarly, what might appear gratuitous displays of vulgarity, hypocrisy, sex and politics interspersed with offensive or annoying speech, are in fact deliberately crafted to draw attention to the damage that can result from knee-jerk legislation and attempts by government to methodize our thinking and regulate our expression. The dialog continues.
Rember, it leaves the door open for a felony proescution if you send an "obscene" email.
I'm not very comftorable with the idea that by sending an "obscene"(loosley defined term at best) email that you could loose your right to vote, bear arms, and leave the country.
If I read the article right, the biggest worry is that the article that was invalidated during the court hearings/put on hold would no longer be so, or was it a permanent change to it and not just a suspension?
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.
----
Open mind, insert foot.
- It must appeal to the average person's prurient interest in sex;
- depict sexual conduct in a "patently offensive way" as defined by community standards; and
- taken as a whole, lack serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.
As you can see, the rule is very subjective, so it is hard to determine whether something qualifies as "obscene".----
Open mind, insert foot.
From reading the article, it would appear that the law was only partially upheld. Originally, it would have banned any indecent, threatening, or obscene material with the intent to harrass or annoy. The judges merely upheld the portion banning material legally defined as obscene. The portion banning indecent material or material with the intent to annoy was struck down.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
"Until that happens, there will a few dozen people jailed for harmless emails considered "obscene", "annoying", or whatever the legal standard is."
...
Yep, that's how this type of law typically works out. It will be selectively enforced, just like laws against oral sex. I pointed out to a buddy the other day that a person would get less time in jail for actually beating the crap out of someone than for threatening to beat the crap out of someone in an email. All this knee jerk lawmaking is further convoluting the krazy quilt of laws we have in this country.
From the land of the convoluted and the home of the befuddled
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
print
I am offended by your use of the f-word on this
page. I'm calling the DA's office right now.
SCARCASM
After going to the annoy.com web site, I'm more than happy to see this come around. I personally don't want people to be able to send me, my family or my children things as disgusting as what I saw there. So bring on the censorship. Now, can we censorship Microsoft Products.
Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
Please read the article. "Obscene" speech has never been ruled protected, and in this particular case, the legality of "indecent" and "filthy" annoying speech was not denied.
Nothing has changed. Old obscenity laws would still have illegalized "obscene" email. The SCUSA is not about to rule "obscenity" legal. However, neither are they about to rule "indecency" illegal.
Mind you, "obscene" is a null phrase; it is a term in theology and in hysterics, not in the description of speech acts. Therefore, any law pertaining to regulate "obscene" speech is mad. However, such laws are not a new thing, nor does this case affect them.
Relax. If you want to have the freedom to speak in manners now considered "obscene", vote Libertarian. Meanwhile, speak fuckin' "indecently", you cocksuckin' motherfuckers.
This law is against the Bill of Rights. Now this, what next? This is a bad precedent. Whenever now laws come up that are against the Bill of Rights they can point to this one and say "hey, that one is against the Bill of Rights, so why can't this one be?". What's next? CDA pushed through anyway? Big Brother? Sure, Big Brother is a hyperbole, and using this law as a precedent is a worst case scenario, but the point is that it's a possibility. This is a bad day for the rights of US citizens.
)O(
the Gods have a sense of humor,
Never underestimate the power of stupidity
To err is human, to moo bovine
Yes, but physical junkmail at least costs the sender money. Spam doesn't (in fact, most spammers go to great length to NOT spend any money). Of course, this doesn't make postal spam right, but it can be legally blocked. Ask the post office for the nice happy form that lets you to not get route-based junkmail, and all those annoying money-saving coupons from the local pizza delivery place will stop coming. (Which is why I *like* postal spam - at least it does me some good.)
---
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.
Quine "quine?
I'm sick and tired of those spammers. Let them rot :)
---
This may be more overblown than serious looking at the referenced article. Although I would like to read the original three judge opinion (the article says interprets to read only obscene...did they read the laundry list as obscene or did they strike particular words) it doesn't seem out of line with the course of modern law.
The key reason this doesn't seem too big is that it is a harass/annoy/etc provision. In this case all the law really is doing is extending protections to email that exist for more traditional forms of communication (phone and fax). If to harass someone I continually faxed them obscene stories (hell, even non-obscene material under some circumstances...how many anti-spam sig files refer to that infamous computer+modem+printer = fax machine provision on the books) I am in violation of the law. Now, if I do the same via email I am in violation as well.
The part that makes me sad is that we might need such a law. I realize the average person might try this with their account and that's one thing (Jake day anyone), but creating a website to facilitate is downright childish. Getting your opinion out is important, but as more and more /.ers as realizing how you get it out is just as important. I looked at annoy.com after reading the story. This site is an example in how not to get your point across. Sure flaming and it's relatives can be fun sometimes and even useful in contexts general spamming of flames to Jerry Falwell/the Supreme Court/Bill Clinton/Rush Limbaugh/Senator Dodd/name your favorite bad guy here might be fun, but doesn't advance the cause much. Maybe if the forces that worry about their ability to spam to annoy with obscene materials spent more time pursuing education and awareness:
1. People wouldn't support the CDA because it seems less necessary and they'd know about its dangers
2. The general public wouldn't be so afraid of cyberspace/the information superhighway/this week's buzzword.
3. We could get some really useful work done.
One of the key components of any freedom is knowing how and when to use it. Most people call this maturity. At times it might be the correct move to heckle, gib, or so on, but that should not be a normal response. When we start behaving like kids and make it our normal response expect someone (generally the goverment) to decide to play adults.
Or maybe it's just the laziness of annoy.com that annoys me. If you're going to get pissy without some, research the email address and type out the message yourself. Stop Lazy Spamming
Herb
Herb
Again, feel free to sentence me to death if my questions annoy you. I'll come back in 5 minutes anyway. -Sythi
Obscene is whatever gives the judge an erection.
- Chuq
2.depict sexual conduct in a "patently offensive way" as defined by community standards;
Whose community? The sender's, the recipient's or a random community through which the message passes? Communities in different parts of the world have different standards, even in these days of global communications. So what may be obscene in the sender's community may be in the recipient's or vice versa.
...Until someone uses it for something useful.
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.
The ACLU are only "liberal" insofar as it relates to forwarding their left-leaning agenda.
Only the truly dim believe that the ACLU is out to forward a truly liberal-democratic agenda. They were laughed out of most law schools decades ago.
Only the truly decadent cater to such white guilt.
What have you done lately?
/.'ers fall into this logical fallacy - that one cannot critisize unless one is participating.
I cannot believe how many
This isn't even logic 101 - its logic 010 - a non-credit course.
As for what I have done, I live the liberal-democratic bs I peddle. I speak my mind and do not interfere with other's rights to speak theirs. What more is there? Oh, I suppose if I filed some questionable lawsuits (like the ACLU) I'd be further ahead in your books? America is already the most litigious nation in the world by a mile. Anyone who manages to stay out of court should be given a medal.
People who participate in causes are the _ONLY_ people who are keeping this world together.
Like those particiapting in the cause of ethnic cleansing?
Or those participating in the so-called "pursuit of the defense free speech" - the costly series of litigations that in fact have very little to do with speech itself and more to do with expanding societies limits on pornography?
People are so convinced that anything associated with the term "free speech" is unassailable and hence cannot be challenged. What a crock. You've all been duped by the so-called "intellectuals". Whatever.
people have a right to pornography
This pretty much sums up American activism since 1975. Pity.
Might as well just call in the Thought Police.
Damn. The US is getting scarier and scarier every day.
This sig is false.
of the Newspeak Dictionary. Doubleplusgood.
Hehehe. Thank god for sarcasm.
And perl hackers.
This sig is false.
Just a test.
Blogging because I can...
Whether you like it or not people have a right to pornography. Some might consider slashdot to be offensive, does that mean we shouldn't be allowed to read it? Just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean that it shouldn't be protected.
-matt
I agree with you whole heartedly. People who want to protect their children from the world and try to give them the illusion of a disney cartoon are going to have problems w/ their children later on in life. My aunt and uncle are born again christians. They both live in a fantasy world, my aunt especially, who believes she has conversations with god, not prayer but actual conversations as she says something and god says something back to her. They tried to bring up their children in a world that doesn't exist. My cousin was married at the age of 19, w/ a 2 year old daughter. Her husband had been married once before and had 3 other children, by two different women. This is what happens when you shelter your children from the world, when they discover it it's a huge shock.
I know lots of people say "well offensive things like pornagraphy shouldn't be protected." Guess what though, some people find the things you hold dear to be offensive. I personally find catholisism to be pattenly offensive. (For the record I am a catholic by birth). The way woman are still prejudiced against to this day, and how people who don't fit their perfect cookie-cutter mold are under the influence of evil, piss me off to no end. But do I want catholisism, or any religion for that matter, out-lawwed? No! They have a right to their beliefs and I have a right to mine. They may be different, they may be the same, but they are not wrong.
I do agree that some people abuse the freedoms granted to them. This is just the way the world is. Some people will take advantage of whatever they can to further their personal status in life. This does NOT mean that the people who do not abuse their rights should be punished, however. Everyone has rights, not just the people you like or agree with.
(Please forgive my spelling)
-matt
I'm aware of this definiton. But I went for a talk by a lawyer recently, and he mentioned that so far, courts have never regarded any written document as obscene -- only visual images.
'Nuff said. FU(K you supreme court.
I'll give a big 'Hell Yeah' there, if you'll pardon the campiness of the reference. There's a TheOnion headline that sums up the ACLU pretty nicely.
ACLU Defends Nazi's Right to Burn Down ACLU Headquarters
-- build a man a fire and he'll be warm all day. set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
... But we can send such email if the intent is to entertain?
Well, apparently, you only have to fool the majority of people for a little while.
Fuck you, damn shit.
To the editors: your English is as bad as your Perl. Please go back to grade school.
obscenity has never been protected. it is not considered "speech" under the auspices of the 1st amendment. therefore, it has never been protected. as for what constitutes obscenity, it is defined as one supreme court justice put it, "i know it when i see it." swear words are speech. there are numerous cases where the words fuck, shit, ass, etc. have all been upheld when in the context of a communication of a thought, such as "fuck draft", see cohen v. california. but just saying fuck, shit, etc. without the communication of an idea is not speech under the 1st amendment and is not protected.
so, if you flame, send nasty emails to people such as the editor of a magazine (like, say mixxzine) saying that they are fucking cocksucking morons and that their editing choices are as fucking bright as sticking a broken light bulb up their ass, it would be protected speech under the 1st amendment since you are communicating an idea. end of story.
I think I want a plane ticket out of this place! It's good to know that our rights can be stripped away just by someone else claiming that it was obscene.
I know, "it's not nice to be harrassing or obscene to others." The law does not differentiate between whether or not the receiver was offended, just if it was offensive content. So I could be joking around with a friend, say something obscene, and if his SysAdmin at work came across it, I could be charged!
Thank you oh so much!
When is the next flight out...
Cause you can't get a tan from an amber monitor. If you do, there is something horribly wrong.
The law does not say that the person that I have directed it to is offended. The law says that it has to be obscene and intended to offend or annoy (sic). That is up to the DA or courts to decide. If you don't think that a DA would jump on a chance to prosecute someone under the "Computer Decency Act," you need to learn a little more about politics. Think of it, it would definately boost chances of getting re-elected, "I protected your children from obscene material!"
So I will say again, this is dangerous because sometimes it is not up to the sender or receiver to decide what is appropriate, but to others who might not see it the same way you do.
Cause you can't get a tan from an amber monitor. If you do, there is something horribly wrong.
I don't find much obscene.. I fine racism obscene my self.. But is it illegal, no.. Becuase it's under the 'religion' stereo type..
I ate my tag line.
-=Ellis (D)25=-
"At issue was a provision in the law making it a crime to transmit a 'communication which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy or indecent with intent to annoy, abuse, threat or harass another person.'"
Yes, the Grand Court of the Greatest Country on God's Green Earth has outlawed flaming! What do we do now?
The law specifies *a communication* ... with intent to annoy, harass, etc. It doesn't say anything about where it is addressed. So yes, if you repeatedly flame Joe Loser on alt.navel.gazing he could go and file a complaint against you. Whether the DA will be willing to prosecute is another matter. OTOH, God knows, there are enough idiots out there...
Kaa
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
People like you always bitch and moan, but never actually leave... why is that? Go ahead, leave. No one is going to miss you.
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
sending an "obscene"(loosley defined term at best) email
I thought obsenity was very well defined via the SLAP test.
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
So are you advocating legalizing child porn in order to protect people from your fantasy scenario?
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
You joking around with your friend can NOT be prosicuted, because it must be "...with intent to annoy, abuse, threat or harass another person."
No DA in America would even bother to prosicute unless it was on a significantly large scale and they felt sure they could prove that you were intending to annoy, abuse, threat or harass.
Until this century sometime (it was early on, but I can't remember exactly when) the US functioned under a system similar to British Common Law. The system was extremely effective and allowed only those offended by the actions of others to have to take legal action. In this century, though, and with the advent enviromentalism (for nonlibertarians it may be hard to understand this, so just go with me on it and do your own research), Common Law was phased out in favor of massive legislation that takes the place of actual court decissions. If you've ever had to deal with the court system in America (directly or indirectly), the problems this causes are painfully obvious.
-- Gordon Worley
nuff said
De sig boss de sig
It saddens me that there are so many people who are so ultra-sensitive and out of touch with reality that the mere sight of a word like "shit" or "damn" is enough to send them into a dizzying tizz, running off and crying on their pillow, running to the Supreme Court crying "make them stop please!".
It saddens me that there are people who believe that the human body, in its nude state, is something offensive. There are people who think genitals are offensive things that should be shamefully hidden away. There are people who think little girls should not be allowed to view the statue of David, presumably because they must not be allowed to know that men have penises.
Its sad that there are so many people who need to be protected from themselves. How do these people survive?
>1.It must appeal to the average person's prurient interest in sex;
>2.depict sexual conduct in a "patently offensive way" as defined by community standards; and
>3.taken as a whole, lack serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.
that third one is the real "it's obscene" killer.
people have been trying to get magazines on the
obscenity thing for a long time but as long as
playboy, et.al. have articles about politics and
science, or publish quality short stories, the
community standards are irrelevent.
(this is a good thing in my opinion. if that
third bit wasnt there, i know what my high
school would have used for the homecoming
bonfire)
Darth --
Nil Mortifi, Sine Lucre
Seems like the only way to get rid of this kind of government techno-megalomaniacism, is to get some people in office that REALLY know what they are talking about.
That is why I am proposing that Rob Malda, or another hacker run for president. We could even form our own political party, the Slashdot Party. And our candidates can be telling the truth when they take credit for supporting open-source, and helping the growth of the internet!
Opinionated Law Student Strikes Again!
In my opinion, flames that can be defined as "a communication which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy or indecent with intent to annoy, abuse, threat or harass" *should* be outlawed. Who says that you have to be obscene, etc., when flaming someone? I have never seen one instance in my entire internet experience where flaming someone in an obscene manner with intent to annoy has resulted in the flamee replying with "Oh, you're right, I'm sorry." It just spirals into a mud-slinging fest and the original topic gets tossed to the side. Although I seriously doubt this ruling will have any effect on what goes on in the newsgroups, perhaps it's a step in the right direction...
Just my $0.12
Darrell
darrell
The US Supreme Court recently upheld a ruling making it illegal to use words such as shit, damn, and fuck in an email. Therefore every effort has been made to avoid the use of words such as shit, damn, and fuck in this email.
I'm no legal expert, but this is criminal law... So you get to be tried by a jury, right?
So then your fantasy DA has to _PROVE_ that you intended to harrass... and he has to convice 12 people (most of whom don't really want to be there) of that this...
And if he loses, he looks like an idiot - his opponent in the next election says "this is the guy who couldn't protect your children!"
I think your fantasy would make a good Terry Gilliam movie - provided they could get some decent writers...
My first reaction to this was to be outraged. I've since thought about it a little more, and have calmed down, and now I can see that there is probably very little harm that this does.
However, two things bother me, still:
1) I'd feel a lot better if this had nothing to do with obcenity or indecency. I would be all for an anti-harrassment or anti-stalking statute, but this is not it. It seems that the anti-spamming issue is an excuse to do much more.
2) What happens when offending mail crosses international borders? who's jurisdiction is it?
It's true that I just don't trust the government anyway. All of that aside, this decision should put us a little on edge. It could make someone a criminal unwittingly.
I agree with the your statement. It echoes what the great British statesman Edmund Burke said on the subject. Whether it is a necessity or merely the natural proceeding is not the issue-- it must merely be taken as fact that as people lose their capacity for self-governance, that the government becomes ever more oppressive and must govern more. Whether you view this as unfortunate reaction or as a necessity to keep the common order and good, if you treasure your rights it does you well to help encourage self governance in all. Those who
do not use their rights well are apt to lose them. The reaction against free speech is caused by the proliferation of unwanted smut, the reaction against the right to bear arms by those who misuse them, and so it goes with all of our civil rights.
Historically, there has always been a balance between individual self-government, and Civil Govornment. Where complete and unadulterated liberty is represented in a society that is on the whole self-governed. (This is what the Libertarian Party aims for.)
But back in the day of the formation of These United States of America, our Founding Fathers knew that mankind could not govern itself rightly, and required aditional external restrictions to provide a prosperous government.
It is another form of the "Balance of Power", just as there is a balance between legislative, executive and judicial, there is a balance between the citizens and the civil sphere.
So there has always been some form of balance between an internal individual self-government, and an external Civil Govornment. When internal self-government is lacking, external Civil government is forced to compensate. And when internal government is strong, there is a lack of need for external government.
This should bring up a few questions:
Is America Self-Govorned enough "play nice" on the internet?
Are we getting what we deserve?
I don't have the answers to these questions, but I am seriously pondering why these laws needed to be instituted. What have we done to deserve it?
*Carlos: Exit Stage Right*
"Geeks, Where would you be without them?"
"Got Linux?"
I Don't. The problem with the U.S. is that people with that view point have no problem allowing others to be silenced. As long as YOU are not silenced when YOU want to crawl up on the soap box. No one forces you to read E-Mails. And if you don't trust your childeren enough to make an informed choice on material like this then you should monitor what they have access to. Your the parent. I'm not; nor is the state. This means YOU have the job of protecting your kids. I shouldn't suffer just because someone wants to hide the world from a child. I hate to sound a wake up call but the USA is NOT Disneyland...
I defend my enemies right to speak because if I don't no one will protect my right to speak.
...ok - I have no problem with that statment, even though I don't encrypt any of my own mail. But what difference does that matter in culpabilty? As an honest question, I'm afraid I don't understand how decripting the message changes the way fault lies in just going ahead and opening the message after, say, merely reading the subject.
Perhaps, as filters are readily availible, it should be better to rule that you have the right to send me something, and I have the right to ignore it (or, if it presents a believable threat, to be protected by the authorities).
I am _very_ curious to see more of what everyone else has to say.
--
So, legally, fuck isnt a word? From the way you stated it, it sounds like the government just removes the 'obscene' words, and if a coherant thought is left it's okay.. But does that mean if i were to say something like 'Spob the spobing spobbers' it'd be obscene? (i'm assuming spob isnt a word here..)
Dreamweaver
"If a man hasn't discovered something he will die for, he isn't fit to live" -- MLK, Jr.