On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, Jim Choate wrote:
>
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2001, Sampo Syreeni wrote:
>
> > Maybe, maybe not. I'm the first to agree that porn *should* be treated as
> > equal to other speech,
>
> But 'porn' is no more speech than 'murder' is. What makes porn so
> offensive isn't the pictures,
On Thu, Aug 16, 2001 at 01:18:47AM +0300, Sampo Syreeni wrote:
> Of course it's wrongheaded -- you're confusing the act, and the act of
> distributing a record of an act.
Well put. Photographs of murder are legal for newspapers to reproduce,
generally speaking, why not porn? But we can't expect C
On Thu, Aug 16, 2001 at 12:09:18AM +0300, Sampo Syreeni wrote:
> Americans naturally know far better than I ever will), one does have some
> reason to believe the "speech" in 1A is mostly targeted at political speech,
> even if the meaning is implied.
That's a common argument with which many Amer
On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, Jim Choate wrote:
>On Thu, 16 Aug 2001, Sampo Syreeni wrote:
>
>> Maybe, maybe not. I'm the first to agree that porn *should* be treated as
>> equal to other speech,
>
>But 'porn' is no more speech than 'murder' is. What makes porn so
>offensive isn't the pictures, but the
On 16 Aug 2001, at 0:09, Sampo Syreeni wrote:
> And I think if you look at the history of the Bill of Rights (which
> Americans naturally know far better than I ever will), one does have some
> reason to believe the "speech" in 1A is mostly targeted at political speech,
> even if the meaning is
On Wed, 15 Aug 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On 16 Aug 2001, at 0:09, Sampo Syreeni wrote:
>
>
> > And I think if you look at the history of the Bill of Rights (which
> > Americans naturally know far better than I ever will), one does have some
> > reason to believe the "speech" in 1A is mos
On Thu, 16 Aug 2001, Sampo Syreeni wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, Jim Choate wrote:
>
> >> Maybe, maybe not. I'm the first to agree that porn *should* be treated as
> >> equal to other speech,
> >
> >But 'porn' is no more speech than 'murder' is. What makes porn so
> >offensive isn't the picture
On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, Jim Choate wrote:
>> Maybe, maybe not. I'm the first to agree that porn *should* be treated as
>> equal to other speech,
>
>But 'porn' is no more speech than 'murder' is. What makes porn so
>offensive isn't the pictures, but the ACTS that had to be commited to
>create the spe
On Thu, 16 Aug 2001, Sampo Syreeni wrote:
> Maybe, maybe not. I'm the first to agree that porn *should* be treated as
> equal to other speech,
But 'porn' is no more speech than 'murder' is. What makes porn so
offensive isn't the pictures, but the ACTS that had to be commited to
create the speec
On Tue, 14 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote:
>However, in a free society with protections similar to the First
>Amendment, what people like or dislike is not germane to what government
>may pass laws about. There is nothing in the First which allows
>government to regulate speech or music or any other suc
On Tuesday, August 14, 2001, at 04:18 PM, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2001 at 05:50:37PM -0400, James B. DiGriz wrote:
>> Be nice if it actually said what it was about, rather than eliciting
>> projections and interpretations on the part of the reader. But, as you
>> say, ho hum. P
On Tuesday, August 14, 2001, at 04:17 PM, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2001 at 03:32:06PM -0700, Tim May wrote:
>> Whether the technology yet exists to allow parents (or wives) to block
>> certain sites is neither here nor there, and it's a shame something
>> called "The National Res
On Tuesday, August 14, 2001, at 02:36 PM, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2001 at 01:53:58PM -0700, Tim May wrote:
>> Third, the issue of online porn, the CDA, the Amateur Action case, etc.
>> have been discussed many times here.
>
> The NRC study will be very important in Washington DC
On Tuesday, August 14, 2001, at 01:22 PM, James B. DiGriz wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Aug 2001, James B. DiGriz wrote:
>
>>
>> And so I've said my say,
>> jbdigriz
>>
>
> Uh, ya'll don't all respond at once now.
>
> Seriously, I know I'm not a regular poster, but don't leave me twisting
> in
> the wind
On Tue, Aug 14, 2001 at 01:53:58PM -0700, Tim May wrote:
> Third, the issue of online porn, the CDA, the Amateur Action case, etc.
> have been discussed many times here.
The NRC study will be very important in Washington DC circles (less
important than the Meese commission, more important than t
On Tue, 14 Aug 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> - Forwarded message from Declan McCullagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
>
> From: Declan McCullagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: FC: NRC asks for reviewers for forthcoming Internet porn report
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date:
16 matches
Mail list logo
