On Wed, 14 May 2008 18:49:47 +0100, Dissenter wrote:
>On Tue, 13 May 2008 18:04:29 -0400, Mike Ross
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 13 May 2008 22:35:37 +0100, Brave New Britain wrote:
>>
>>>NY lawmakers want to criminalize violent Web postings
>>>
>>>Newsday, New York, USA: 13 May 2008
>>>http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--internetviolence0513may13,0,7364393.story
>>>Or, http://tinyurl.com/3r9za5
>>>
>>>ALBANY, N.Y. - Reacting to recent Internet postings like "Dude gets
>>>savagely put to sleep" and "Brutal girl fight," several Republican
>>>state senators vowed Tuesday to criminalize videotaping and sharing
>>>assaults online, saying it victimizes people a second time.
>>>[...]
>>
>>Not a snowballs chance in hell - we have this pesky little First Amendment...
>
>Your 'pesky First Amendment' didn't stop them from banning child ..
>All the same arguments will be brought out to stop 'violent .'.
A matter of different tests. The only reason child . was able to be banned is
that it served a legitimate state interest, and involved photos of activity that
would under every conceivable circumstance be criminal - it's impossible to say
of child . 'it was only acting - there was no *real* penetration', for
instance. So also, drawings, paintings, and computer simulations are NOT banned.
American judges are very sensitive to anything that smacks of prior restraint,
and will give it strict scrutiny.
But with violence there's always the *possibility* that it was acted out. The SC
will come down like a ton of bricks on this, if they try to enact it in the
manner described.
Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within' |