ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[stld-rfp-xxx]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: .XXX is a viable concept, and here's why

  • To: stld-rfp-xxx@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: Re: .XXX is a viable concept, and here's why
  • From: "Michael Bauser" <michael@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 01:10:30 -0400

-----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-----





<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>