Computers, Privacy & the Constitution

View   r12  >  r11  ...
DavidMehlFirstPaper 12 - 22 Apr 2010 - Main.DavidMehl
Line: 1 to 1
 
META TOPICPARENT name="WebPreferences"
Ready for comments.
Line: 73 to 73
 I hope these comments are helpful. Thanks for your essay on this difficult topic.
Added:
>
>

Brian,

Thanks for your helpful comments. I am still in the process of editing and whittling the article down to 1,000 words. I will incorporate the changes you suggested.

In regard to the Pope decision, my reading of Pope was that the Court held that in cases where there exists a 'community' but we're unsure as to WHICH MEMBER'S standard to apply (or even which community's standard to apply), we look to the 'reasonable person'. The issue being discussed in Ashcroft was whether the Act was overbroad because it is impossible to apply 'community' standards to the internet.

Your observation about the difficulty involved with drafting statutes regarding pornography not made for pedophiles was what the drafters were thinking when they drafted 18 USC 2252A(a)(3)(B). By permitting virtual depictions of non-graphic sexually explicit conduct and allowing promotion of non-obscene works, Congress remedied the overbreadth problem that existed in the CPPA, and ensured that award-winning films like American Beauty were not targeted by the statute. The problem is fitting all of this into 1,000 words.......

-- DavidMehl - 22 Apr 2010

 
 
<--/commentPlugin-->

Revision 12r12 - 22 Apr 2010 - 15:31:43 - DavidMehl
Revision 11r11 - 22 Apr 2010 - 04:29:02 - BrianS
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
Syndicate this site RSSATOM