4
edits
Changes
Obscenity
::"The CDA was an attempt to protect minors from explicit material on the Internet by criminalizing the "knowing" transmission of "obscene or indecent" messages to any recipient under 18; and also the knowing sending to a person under 18 of anything "that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or excretory activities or organs."" Okay, so if someone uses a foul word, what's the plan? How many lawsuits do you intend to begin? Doesn't this strike anyone as an abuse of the judicial system? Mostly, this description sounds like this is what you are hoping will happen. [[User:Menkatron|Menkatron]] 09:34, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
::"The CDA was an attempt to protect minors from explicit material on the Internet by criminalizing the "knowing" transmission of "obscene or indecent" messages to any recipient under 18; and also the knowing sending to a person under 18 of anything "that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or excretory activities or organs."" Okay, so if someone uses a foul word, what's the plan? How many lawsuits do you intend to begin? Doesn't this strike anyone as an abuse of the judicial system? Mostly, this description sounds like this is what you are hoping will happen. [[User:Menkatron|Menkatron]] 09:34, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Like I stated before, I think this would be a waste of the court's time. I personally think lawyers who bring pointless cases against people (ie hot coffee spilled in your lap) should face consqeuences for their reckless suing and charges. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 10:54, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Like I stated before, I think this would be a waste of the court's time. I personally think lawyers who bring pointless cases against people (ie hot coffee spilled in your lap) should face consqeuences for their reckless suing and charges. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 10:54, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
== Obscenity ==
No definition of [[obscene]] is given in 18 USC 1470, and there is no general list of definitions for Chapter 71: Obscenity either. In the context of [[CIPA]], [http://www.llrx.com/features/updatecipa.htm this web site] discusses the Miller Test for Obscenity, the [[case law]] definition which applies when a specific definition is not given. Believe me, we are not talking about 4 letter words here. Also of interest is 18 USC 1460, also devoid of definitions, which states ''"Whoever ... knowingly '''sells''' or possesses with intent to sell an '''obscene visual depiction''' shall be punished by a fine in accordance with the provisions of this title or imprisoned for not more than 2 years, or both."'' So perhaps a workable definition of obscenity would be something which, if depicted visually, would be illegal to sell in the United States.
While you're reading 18 USC Chapter 71, why not take a look at [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001461----000-.html 1461] which bans the mailing of ''Every obscene, lewd, lascivious, indecent, filthy or vile article, matter, thing, device, or substance; and— Every article or thing designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral use; and'' ... they're just getting started. It does on to deal with telling people where to get something thay can use for an indecent or immoral purpose, or even giving people ideas about an immoral use for something they already have. Seriously, folks could have a great time prosecuting half the population of the United States armed only with a few reasonably broad definitions and this law.
Finally, I know this site is intentionally "for Americans", but do consider that many users of this site are not in the United States, so threatening them with U.S. laws is unlikely to impress. Personally, I don't think having such things as a "welcome message" is going to impress anyone.
-- [[User:LD|LD]] 13:07, 17 March 2007 (EDT)