Is adult internet chat protected speech

The court also notes neither the state nor SAG have shown any causal link between IMDb's publication of actors' ages and age discrimination in Hollywood studios.Even if IMDb's publications make it "easier" for studio heads to discriminate (a point the court does not concede), the statutory remedy deployed by California would only force IMDb to remove age info at the request of , which means there would still be plenty of data available for studios to "misuse." It's a resounding loss for both entities -- both of which should have known the law was destined for the federal court chopping block while it was still in its infancy.If SAG really wants to do something about discrimination, it should use its collective weight to make changes in the studio system, rather than enable censorship and threaten the same protections that allow movies to be made without government interference.It's a stupid law and the district court does everything but directly call it stupid during the course of its six-page decision.

"The court found that these programs are inherently flawed and will inevitably prevent library patrons all over the country from accessing valuable speech online," she added.

The ACLU's lawyers had argued in weeks of testimony that the law was unconstitutional, unenforceable and vague and would deny people without home computers full access to information online.

In its 195-page decision, the court sided with the civil liberties groups, nothing they were worried that library patrons might be too embarrassed or lose their right to be anonymous because the CIPA law required that they seek permission to have the filtering software removed.

In its ruling, the judges agrees the use of filtering technology blocked portions of protected speech "whose suppression serves no legitimate government interest." "Any public library that adheres to CIPA's conditions will necessarily restrict patrons access to a substantial amount of protected speech in violation of the First Amendment," according to the ruling. appeals court ruling which found the 1998 Child Online Protection Act (COPA) too broad in scope.

Lawyers for the Justice Department are expected to appeal the ruling, which would go directly to the U. It is the third time constitutional challenges have been made against laws aimed at curbing Internet pornography. In an 8-1 vote, the justices ruled that the appeals court could not bar enforcement of the law on the basis that it relies on community standards to identify harmful material.

Leave a Reply