leaving ATT
@sbcglobal.net
| reply to graysonf
Re: Is AT&T removing alt.* newsgroups
Just read this.
In its ruling Tuesday, the federal appeals court concluded that the Child Online Protection Act is unconstitutionally overly broad and vague. The court also ruled that the law violates the First Amendment because filtering technologies and other parental control tools offer a less restrictive way to protect children from inappropriate content online. |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
 ·Pacific Bell - SBC
| Except that Andrew Cuomo isn't trying to protect children from access to salacious content, he is trying to prevent everybody else from accessing content involving underage participants in salacious activity. The latter is, in most jurisdictions, a criminal act (the depiction of underage participants engaged in salacious activity).
It is still overly broad, IMHO, to chop all binary groups when so few were problematic. But I don't think the NYAG cares that the ISPs are being overly broad, as long as they include his pet newsgroups in the access denied list.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
FAQFixer
Premium
join:2004-06-28
Powder Springs, GA
| reply to leaving ATT
said by leaving ATT :
Just read this.
In its ruling Tuesday, the federal appeals court concluded that the Child Online Protection Act is unconstitutionally overly broad and vague. The court also ruled that the law violates the First Amendment because filtering technologies and other parental control tools offer a less restrictive way to protect children from inappropriate content online.
The best way to protect your company is to not offer the service at all. You don't worry about any law or court cases because they don't apply to you. Pretty smart huh? |
|
