Comments on: Commentary: Free Internet… At What Cost? http://thenewgay.net/2008/05/free-internet-at-what-cost.html For Everyone Over the Rainbow Thu, 24 May 2012 04:53:53 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: Chris http://thenewgay.net/2008/05/free-internet-at-what-cost.html#comment-3364 Chris Mon, 02 Jun 2008 18:02:00 +0000 http://tngmichael.wordpress.com/2008/05/30/free-internet-at-what-cost/#comment-3364 Andrew, thanks for catching that! Andrew, thanks for catching that!

]]> By: Andrew Pendleton http://thenewgay.net/2008/05/free-internet-at-what-cost.html#comment-3363 Andrew Pendleton Sat, 31 May 2008 00:52:00 +0000 http://tngmichael.wordpress.com/2008/05/30/free-internet-at-what-cost/#comment-3363 Not to nitpick, but the Supreme Court ruled on Lawrence v. Texas, 539 US 558, in 2003. Not to nitpick, but the Supreme Court ruled on Lawrence v. Texas, 539 US 558, in 2003.

]]> By: DLC http://thenewgay.net/2008/05/free-internet-at-what-cost.html#comment-3361 DLC Fri, 30 May 2008 20:29:00 +0000 http://tngmichael.wordpress.com/2008/05/30/free-internet-at-what-cost/#comment-3361 No cause for concern my dear Chris.<br/>Obscenity is not considered protected speech under the First Amendment (nor is child pornography). Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957). So the government can put this kind of limitation on the sale of the bandwidth. Nonetheless, the types of material which you are concerned about are not considered obscene.<br/> <br/>Obscene material is determined by "(a) whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." Miller v. California , 413 U.S. 15 (1973).<br/><br/>That means that most things that have any kind of value are going to be ok, because to lack any value mentioned above it would have to be some pretty dumb stuff. If you have a doubt about it come over and I'll show you a take-off on the Pirates of the Caribbean that will make it crystal-clear.<br/><br/>Whether websites will begin self-censoring to be allowed on the free area is another story, but for now, legally, there is no cause for alarm (imho). For more info check out http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/speech/adultent/topic.aspx?topic=pornography No cause for concern my dear Chris.
Obscenity is not considered protected speech under the First Amendment (nor is child pornography). Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957). So the government can put this kind of limitation on the sale of the bandwidth. Nonetheless, the types of material which you are concerned about are not considered obscene.

Obscene material is determined by “(a) whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” Miller v. California , 413 U.S. 15 (1973).

That means that most things that have any kind of value are going to be ok, because to lack any value mentioned above it would have to be some pretty dumb stuff. If you have a doubt about it come over and I’ll show you a take-off on the Pirates of the Caribbean that will make it crystal-clear.

Whether websites will begin self-censoring to be allowed on the free area is another story, but for now, legally, there is no cause for alarm (imho). For more info check out http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/speech/adultent/topic.aspx?topic=pornography

]]> By: DLC http://thenewgay.net/2008/05/free-internet-at-what-cost.html#comment-3362 DLC Fri, 30 May 2008 20:29:00 +0000 http://tngmichael.wordpress.com/2008/05/30/free-internet-at-what-cost/#comment-3362 No cause for concern my dear Chris.<br/>Obscenity is not considered protected speech under the First Amendment (nor is child pornography). Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957). So the government can put this kind of limitation on the sale of the bandwidth. Nonetheless, the types of material which you are concerned about are not considered obscene.<br/> <br/>Obscene material is determined by "(a) whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." Miller v. California , 413 U.S. 15 (1973).<br/><br/>That means that most things that have any kind of value are going to be ok, because to lack any value mentioned above it would have to be some pretty dumb stuff. If you have a doubt about it come over and I'll show you a take-off on the Pirates of the Caribbean that will make it crystal-clear.<br/><br/>Whether websites will begin self-censoring to be allowed on the free area is another story, but for now, legally, there is no cause for alarm (imho). For more info check out http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/speech/adultent/topic.aspx?topic=pornography No cause for concern my dear Chris.
Obscenity is not considered protected speech under the First Amendment (nor is child pornography). Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957). So the government can put this kind of limitation on the sale of the bandwidth. Nonetheless, the types of material which you are concerned about are not considered obscene.

Obscene material is determined by “(a) whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” Miller v. California , 413 U.S. 15 (1973).

That means that most things that have any kind of value are going to be ok, because to lack any value mentioned above it would have to be some pretty dumb stuff. If you have a doubt about it come over and I’ll show you a take-off on the Pirates of the Caribbean that will make it crystal-clear.

Whether websites will begin self-censoring to be allowed on the free area is another story, but for now, legally, there is no cause for alarm (imho). For more info check out http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/speech/adultent/topic.aspx?topic=pornography

]]>