Special project: Internet Law
Censorship and the Internet
• Introduction
• Issues & short
answers
• Previous state
of the law
• Discussion
• Future of the Law
• Authorities
Cited
|
Endnotes
1.liibulletin
Internet law project: Copyright
2.Miller
v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973)
3.Roth
v. U.S., 354 U.S. 476
4.Sable
Communications of California, Inc. v. F.C.C., 492 U.S. 115 (1989)
5.See e.g. Ginsburg
v. New York, 390 U.S. 629 (1968) (holding that a state can prohibit
the distribution of sexually explicit material to children even though
those materials would not be deemed obscene if distributed to an adult).
6.See Thomas v. U.S.,
74 F.3d 701 (6th Cir. 1996) (convicting a California couple of interstate
transportation of obscenity for operating an online bulletin board service
from which a man in Tennessee retrieved images that were obscene by Tennessee
community standards).
7.See Association
"Union des Estudianted Juifs de France" et al v. Yahoo! Inc.,
& Yahoo! France, TGI Paris, Ord. Ref., D. 2000, IR172 (holding
that Yahoo! must prevent web users in France from visiting Yahoo! auction
sites that sell Nazi memorabilia after the judge appointed three international
experts to assess the technical difficulties and efficiency of the ISP
provider to screen web users given the available technology).
8.See Reno v. ACLU,
929 F. Supp. 824 (E.D. Pa. 1996) (holding that CDA deprives adults of
materials protected by the First Amendment in prohibiting the transmission
of indecent comments). See also Reno v. Shea, 930 F. Supp 916 (S.D.N.Y.
1996).
9.Reno
v. ACLU, 521 US 844 (1997).
10.American Library Association
v. Pataki, 969 F. Supp. 160 (S.D.N.Y. 1997), at 181.
11.18
U.S.C. § 2252(a)(1).
12.Ashcroft
v. Free Speech Coalition (00-795) 198 F.3d 1083, affirmed; See also Free
Speech Coalition v. Reno 220 F. 3d. 1113 (9th Cir. 2000);
13.47
U.S.C.§ 231(a)(1).
14.For a more extensive comparison
of the CDA and COPA see Matthew Baughman, Recent Legislation:
Regulating the Internet, 36 HARV. J. ON LEGIS.
230 (Winter 1999).
15.ACLU v. Reno, 31
F.Supp.2d 473 (E.D. Pa. 1999)
16.See generally Ashcroft
v. ACLU, WL 1530256 (2001).
17.Id. (See also
Linda Greenhouse, Justices Revisit the Issue of Child Protection in
the Age of Internet Pornography, N.Y. Times, November 29, 2001, at
A1.)
18.People v. Foley,
94 N.Y.2d 668 (2000), at 684.
19.Mainstream Loudoun v.
Board of Trustees of the Loudoun County Library, 24 F.Supp.2d 552
(E.D. Va. 1998)
20.Linda Greenhouse, Justices
Revisit the Issue of Child Protection in the Age of Internet Pornography,
N.Y. Times, November 29, 2001, at A1.
21.Pataki, 969 F.
Supp., at 183.
22.Gibbons v. Ogden,
9 Wheat. (22 U.S.) 1 (1824).
23.Hoge, 19 Countries
Join in Raids on International Pornography, NY Times, November 29,
2001, at Al1.
|
