<p>In a decisive victory for a paper on free speech in cyberspace, the supreme court overturned the communications decency act in the reno v. Aclu plan in june 1997. The court granted the internet the highest degree of first amendment protection, and cyber activists are still dancing on the roads. / ><p>But is cyberspace really immune to censorship?</p><p>Despite supreme court scrutiny, states are busy drafting censorship laws at home. Since 1995, laws have been enacted in at least thirteen states. New mexico already passed a draconian censorship act in 2017, <a href="https://porngenerator.win/">ai generated celebrity porn</a> note that ten states have bills pending.</p>the american civil liberties union has so far managed to repeal three states, but there is a bigger goal ahead of them to provide freedom of speech online in any state that has that right under threat.</p><p>Our state legislators need to be sure about what online means, but don't shut him up.</p><p>In 2019, aclu fights against bills in the following states:</p><p>State bills pending in 1998 <p>Californiaassembly act of 1793, to sponsor a member of the assembly. Is required to ensure that all public libraries that receive public funds adopt a policy that prohibits minors from accessing hazardous materials at internet terminals in the library.</p><p>Illinois state assembly bill2568, sponsor assembly member novak. It makes it a criminal offense to disclose juicy entertainment or child pornography content on our site to the name, address, network number, or email address of a minor.</p><p>Kansassenate bill 670 sponsored by senator hulscamp. Requires mandatory use of a blocking program by all users of internet terminals in federal public libraries, school districts, but also federal and small high schools, colleges and universities. . Requires mandatory use of blocking software on official internet terminals in federal schools.</p><p>Missourisenate bill 850 sponsored by senator kenny. Requires the use of a blocking program by all users of internet terminals in public libraries.</p><p>New york assembly bill5395, sponsored by assemblyman mazzarelli. Criminalizes engaging in online sexual conversations with minors.</p><p>Assembly bill 6453, sponsored by assemblyman klein. Requires all public libraries to establish a policy restricting minors' access to obscene material.</p><p>Ohiohouse act 565, sponsored by rep. Terwillegher. Criminalizes online distribution of "harmful to minors" materials.</p><p>Rhode islandsenate bill 2864 sponsored by senator cicillino. . . Intent on engaging, facilitating, encouraging, soliciting and coercing unlawful sexual acts and/or any felony or misdemeanor."</p><p>House bill 3353tennessee sponsored by rep. Burchett. Requires mandatory use of blocking internet terminals by all users in federal educational institutions and libraries. Makes online service providers strictly liable for the dissemination of "obscene material, child pornography, or pornographic material that is harmful to youth."</p><p>Virginiahouse proposition 348, sponsored by rep. Marshall. Requires mandatory use of a blocking program by all users of internet terminals in federal libraries. Criminalizes the distribution of online content in libraries that "harm to minors."</p><p>State laws governing online free speech</p><p>Californiaassembly bill 132, passed july 7, 1997sponsor: rep. Bloodwin.Require schools to adopt a go-to policy regarding student access to sites that are harmful to minors.</p>connecticuthouse bill 6883 passed 6/95.Sponsored by: house judiciary committee.Makes it a criminal offense to send an online message "with the intent to harass, annoy, or harass another person." <p>Floridasenate bill 156, passed 5/96.Sponsor: senator burt.Revises existing child pornography act to make owners or operators of internet computer services directly liable for allowing subscribers to break the law.</p><p>Georgiabill 1630 passed 4/96.Sponsor: rep. Don parsons.Criminalizes the use of pseudonyms on net and prohibits unauthorized linking to websites with trade names or logos. Repealed in aclu v. Miller</p><p>House bill 76 passed 3/95.Sponsor: rep. . Wall.Prohibits the online transmission of profanity, obscene or vulgar language about minors, as well as data related to terrorist installations or certain dangerous weapons.</p><p>Kansasbill of the house of representatives 2223 adopted 5/95. Expands the child pornography act to include computer-generated images.</p><p>Minnesotahouse bill 575/senate 585, passed 7/97 (as part of the compromise wa bill). The education commissioner to recommend computer software products to schools to block intgernet access to speech that is obscene or designed to promote violence. 95. Expands child pornography statute to prohibit electronic transmission and possession of computer-generated images of child pornography.</p><p>New mexicosenate bill 127 passed 3/98. Criminalizes the transmission of messages depicting "nudity, intimacy or any other sexual behavior." Aclu has promised to file legal action against the law before it enters on 07/01/98.</p><p>Nevadasenate bill 13 passed 7/97. Creates a civil damages suit against individuals who send unsolicited advertising on the internet.</p><p>New yorksenate bill 210e passed 7/96.Sponsored by: senator sears ; rep. Destito.Criminalized transmission of "obscene" material to minors.Dismissed ala v. Pataki.</p><p>Oklahomahouse proposition 1048 passed 4/ 95.Sponsor: rep. Perry.Prohibits online transmission of data deemed "dangerous to minors."</p><p>House concurrent resolution 1097 passed 5/96. Sponsor : rep. Polkinstructs all established institutions, including major corporations, to remove all illegal obscene information from their computer systems.</p><p>Virginiahouse bill 7, accepted 3/96. Sponsor: rep. Marshall.Prohibits any government official from using government computer services for quick or consumable porn distribution.Repealed in the market by urofsky v. Allen.</p>law 1067 senate, entered on cause 5/95.Sponsor: senator calhounexpands existing law to criminalize transmission of computer-state child pornography.</p><p>Like cda, these state bills raise serious concerns about freedom of speech. Both overlook the interesting nature of the online environment, and more than half of them censor adult and underage performances protected by the constitution.</p><p>Laws that seek to avoid paintings for large minors, after all, all online content before that is good for a child - the supreme court declared this result unconstitutional in reno v. Acl. Likewise, the use of blocking software in libraries does not provide an opportunity for high-profile people, like schoolchildren, to open up to valuable speech such as sex education merchandise, abuse recovery discussions, and speeches about the troubles of lesbians and gays.</p><p>The draconian effect of state censorship bills does not end at state borders. The message that you post online in the 3rd millennium in new york, tomorrow may be distributed to fifty regions and software around the world. Attention is required to ensure that the message is not "obscene" in oklahoma, "annoying" in connecticut, or "vulgar" in georgia.</p><p>These state laws represent a cumulative threat to online speech that can even more powerful than cda, since any online visitor must follow all state laws or risk being prosecuted if their speech becomes available in the neighborhood, which makes it illegal.</p><p>Furthermore, in violation of the first amendment, a substantial number of such state censorship laws violate the commerce clause of the constitution, as they criminalize online conversations that take place entirely outside state lines and burden commerce between states. Earlier in that century, the supreme court overturned onerous state laws governing railroad train lengths.</p><p>As the court found in overturning new york's market censorship law ala v. Pataki, the internet looks very much like a railroad system , due to the fact that a porn bunny is needed to send speech and information throughout russia. New york law, like similar state laws, violated the trade clause because it would require a texan who posts a web page or message to comply with new york standards, even if no new yorker has yet i saw your page didn't read your message. .</p><p>The court of business ala v. Pataki ruled that online users are required to remain insured against "controversial legislation which, if carried too far, could completely paralyze the progress of the web."</p> <p>Aclu's national network of local affiliates stands ready to resist the government's attack on your choice to speak freely online.</p><p>Aclu wins in the courts</p><p>Ala v. Pataki: in a precedent-setting test, a court overturned new york state's online "obscenity" law because it violated the commerce statute of the constitution, which forbids states from regulating speech that is wholly outside their own limit and imposing on speakers inconsistent governmental burden.</p><p>Aclu v. Miller: this occupation overturned, on a free speech basis, a georgia law that makes it a crime to 1) communicate anonymously or with a pseudonym over the world wide web; 2) to sculpt redirects to web pages that use trade names, trademarks, or logos.</p><p>Urofsky v. Allen: this assignment overturned a virginia law that prohibited government officials, even university professors, from using state computers for entering or transmitting content of an erotic nature.</p>
เข้าชม : 68
|
