Xref: utzoo news.admin:3642 misc.legal:5981
Path: utzoo!mnetor!cxsea!ssc-vax!uw-beaver!mit-eddie!ooblick
From: ooblick@eddie.MIT.EDU (Mikki Barry)
Newsgroups: alt.sex,news.admin,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Is alt.sex about to be legislated away?
Message-ID: <10208@eddie.MIT.EDU>
Date: 6 Oct 88 12:49:47 GMT
References: <9644@cup.portal.com> <7507@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US>
Reply-To: ooblick@eddie.MIT.EDU (Mikki Barry)
Followup-To: misc.legal
Organization: MIT, EE/CS Computer Facilities, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 21

jfh writes:
>First to dismiss the "First Amendment" nonsense.  It is nonsense.  Pornography
>is not protected under the First Amendment.  Your complaining about the bill
>is covered.  So you may continue to complain. ;-)

I beg to differ with you.  There is a huge body of common law based on the
first amendment that deals with pornography.  In fact, the "legal tests"
for defining something as pornography are based on balancing the first
amendment with community standards.  So we *are* dealing with a first
amendment issue.

>My first question is, do any of the legal-beagles think this bill is aimed
>at things such as alt.sex?  I don't have any qualms with dumping alt.sex if
>it is - and at the same time I am somewhat concerned considering I feed
>alt.sex into Michigan.  [ thus, so my thinking goes, making this an
>interstate matter and more liking to fall under federal jurisdiction ]

If you're not talking about child porn and/or 900 numbers (or whatever else
they've decided to legislate about this time), you should be just fine.
The first amendment doesn't cover child porn as it is a crime.  However,
900 numbers?  That could be a different story.