Re: .XXX is a viable concept, and here's why
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The US Government can enact legislative requirements to not route non-compliant sites. Congress can *enact* it, but they can't make it constitutional (nor can they make it work). The Supreme Court will not let them block communications between consenting adults under the auspices of protecting children. You would be requiring every American who ever wants to send a dirty picture to their significant other to register a .xxx domain. That's effectively a "license requirement" for private speech. The Supremes don't go for that. They also won't go for a law that requires somebody monitor every web request, e-mail, and instant message in America. They're strangely protective of people's privacy like that. (To consider a US based law in this regard as unconstitutional is ridiculous. Firstly, it's the *Bill of Rights* not the Constitution so let's re-educate those that were asleep during history class. The law would not infringe on these rights - read the Bill of Rights, I have ~ to even think that it would violate First Amendment is insane If I'm insane, you're completely fucking nuts, and have a deep misunderstanding of the United States Constitution. Let's go straight to the test case: The unananimous opinion that ruled the indeceny provisions of the Communications Deceny Act *unconstitutional*: "At issue is the constitutionality of two statutory provisions enacted to protect minors from "indecent" and "patently offensive" communications on the Internet. Notwithstanding the legitimacy and importance of the congressional goal of protecting children from harmful materials, we agree with the three judge District Court that the statute abridges "the freedom of speech" protected by the First Amendment." THAT'S THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF THE SYLLABUS. It says the indeceny provisions were unconstitutional becuase they conflict with the protected rights of the First Amendment. http://www.ciec.org/SC_appeal/opinion.shtml For those self-professed *constitutional* experts, tell me why nobody has argued that you cannot have a cover blocking pornographic magazines at a news stand because it is *unconstitutional* ~ why? BECAUSE IT'S NOT! Those are laws affecting *commercial* *speech*, which have always has less Constitutional protection than non-commercial speech. The Constitutional issue with nearly all legislative solutions to the "porn problem" is that they also apply to non-commercial speech. http://www.ciec.org/SC_appeal/syllabus.shtml (Section b) Nothing else you wrote is worthy of response, because it's based on a dangerous misinterpretation of how the United States works, *and* it's not even the proposal we're discussing. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (MingW32) - GPGshell v3.01 iD8DBQFAkd8scpuEJT2bpHsRAsPKAKDPkR8PqwBLCCmuZtm8r8bV4R/A2QCg8eV+ qhhD9Jo5nA3uxrB6rQ1viJQ= =4fnz -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |