Changes

There's some fun Commerce Clause jurisprudence on this statute, isn't there, I think one of the parties is X-Citement Video, but I can't find it in my briefs...--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 23:37, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

There's some fun Commerce Clause jurisprudence on this statute, isn't there, I think one of the parties is X-Citement Video, but I can't find it in my briefs...--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 23:37, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:: He is, it's true.  Asch, could you give me a cite for a similar case?  I'm really curious... I'm taking Crim and I'd love to know how ''mens rea'' is constructed by a judge in a hypothetical case like this.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 11:42, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:: He is, it's true.  Asch, could you give me a cite for a similar case?  I'm really curious... I'm taking Crim and I'd love to know how ''mens rea'' is constructed by a judge in a hypothetical case like this.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 11:42, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Obscene material is not profanity ==

==         material is not profanity ==

It refers to using mail to send X-rated materials to minors, not posting bad words on a free-use website.

It refers to using mail to send -     materials to minors, not posting bad words on a free-use website.

: You're wrong.  18 USC 1470 is applied to the internet, and whether the website is "free-use" or not is irrelevant.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:46, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

: You're wrong.  18 USC 1470 is applied to the internet, and whether the website is "free-use" or not is irrelevant.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:46, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::So, can you sue people who disagree with the premise of this "encyclopedia?" or, is the purpose of this comment to point out that nothing X-rated ought to appear here? I am just wondering because it seems if you intend to create something comprehensive, open and fair you will have to entertain that which is not. In, say, an article on lesbianism, would it be acceptable to include other terms, perhaps pejorative in nature, that you deem offensive? Further, would those who use so-called obscene material in their argument against such content also be subject to your prosecution?  

::So, can you sue people who disagree with the premise of this "encyclopedia?" or, is the purpose of this comment to point out that nothing -     ought to appear here? I am just wondering because it seems if you intend to create something comprehensive, open and fair you will have to entertain that which is not. In, say, an article on lesbianism, would it be acceptable to include other terms, perhaps pejorative in nature, that you deem offensive? Further, would those who use so-called obscene material in their argument against such content also be subject to your prosecution?  

Another example of this might be the recent comment by Anne Coulter. She is a popular pundit, but should her Edwards debacle be quoted in its entirety or must we censor the word "f----t" from all mention? Another question I have is then do we link to the obscene material or just allude to it, like "Coulter used a term that means gay to describe edwards" or something? Strange to have a comment like this on the main page. [[User:Menkatron|Menkatron]] 13:32, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Another example of this might be the recent comment by Anne Coulter. She is a popular pundit, but should her Edwards debacle be quoted in its entirety or must we censor the word "f----t" from all mention? Another question I have is then do we link to the obscene material or just allude to it, like "Coulter used a term that means gay to describe edwards" or something? Strange to have a comment like this on the main page. [[User:Menkatron|Menkatron]] 13:32, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

: Any more cases out there? [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 20:57, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

: Any more cases out there? [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 20:57, 15 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)

::"The CDA was an attempt to protect minors from                   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)