Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

*kicks can*

Well, this fucking sucks. In case you missed it, from the New York Times:

Published: March 20, 2006

Filed at 10:32 a.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court turned back an appeal on Monday from a photographer who claimed a federal decency law violated her free-speech rights to post pictures of sadomasochistic sexual behavior on the Web.

Justices affirmed a decision last year by a special three-judge federal panel upholding the 1996 law which makes it a crime to send obscenity over the Internet to children.

The court could have used the case to set online obscenity standards. The subject of children and indecency has gotten more attention recently.

Last week the government renewed its crackdown on indecent television by proposing nearly $4 million in fines for controversial broadcasts.

The Supreme Court appeal was brought by photographer Barbara Nitke, whose work is featured in the book ''Kiss of Fire: A Romantic View of Sadomasochism,'' and by the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom.

Material that is obscene is not protected by the First Amendment, but Nitke's lawyer contends her work is art that is not obscene.

Justices were told by attorney John Wirenius of New York that if they turned down the case, ''many more Internet users will likely face the constitutionally unsupportable choice faced by Ms. Nitke: either to censor her published images or risk prosecution.''

The law requires that those sending obscene communications on the Internet take reasonable actions to keep it away from children, like requiring a credit card, debit account or adult access code as proof of age.

The Bush administration had urged justices to stay out of the case.

The case is Nitke v. Gonzales, 05-526.


On the Net:

Supreme Court: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/

For additional discussion by someone who worked on the case, go to alanesq's journal.


( 15 comments — Leave a comment )
Mar. 20th, 2006 07:42 pm (UTC)
*big eyes* but... but I thought we lived in a free country...
Mar. 20th, 2006 07:55 pm (UTC)
In America you're only as free as you can afford to be.
Mar. 20th, 2006 07:43 pm (UTC)
Well, ____.
Mar. 20th, 2006 07:47 pm (UTC)
I loathe this administration. LOATHE it.
Mar. 20th, 2006 08:28 pm (UTC)
Much as I hate turning this into a partisan debate. You might be surprised to learn that you are blaming the wrong administration for this law.


There is plenty of blame to pass around on both sides of the aisle.
Mar. 20th, 2006 08:29 pm (UTC)
Actually, I was referring to the specific recommendation by the Bush Administration for the judges to keep their hands off of this case, as it seems that's exactly what they've done.
Mar. 20th, 2006 08:34 pm (UTC)
That's actually standard policy for the current administration (through the office of the solicitor general) to request that the Supreme Court not strike down enacted legislation.

Of course, this current administration most likely had no problem with the legislation itself, regardless of the fact that Clinton signed it into law.
Mar. 20th, 2006 08:11 pm (UTC)
that's such crap.
Mar. 20th, 2006 08:23 pm (UTC)
Orwell was an optimist. Our country lacks spunk. I can only imagine what would be happening in the streets if this were, say, 1969 and the govt tried to pull this off.

Mar. 20th, 2006 08:25 pm (UTC)
For additional discussion by someone who worked on the case, go to alanesq's journal.

I appreciate the hat tip. However, I really worked only on a very small portion of the case; hardly worth mentioning. The real hero on this case is jwirenius. I have little doubt that he will soon write something on his blog.

However, give him some time. I imagine he's had better days.
Mar. 20th, 2006 08:39 pm (UTC)
But... who's surprised by this?
I'm not.
(Deleted comment)
Mar. 20th, 2006 10:51 pm (UTC)
That fucking sucks
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
( 15 comments — Leave a comment )