Replies

I'm a firm believer that local communities should be able to enforce some standards of public behavior, as well as set limits to types of businesses in the area. I am willing to accept that view all the way up to the state level. So, if a particular state wants to outlaw the selling of pornography within its borders, or the showing of pornographic movies in public theaters, etc., they have every right to do so. The First Amendment 1) was meant to protect speech of a political nature, but if we accept that it protects all speech, pornography still isn't speech under a reasonable defintion 2) is explicitly applied to the Federal government.

The theory behind our form of government was that the voting public would put in office people who would represent their values and act accordingly. Therefore, if democratically elected representatives enact into law, at the state or local level, such stadnards, then so be it. Where I would draw the line is when the government tries to enforce standards or practices that are against the will of the people. So, for instance, if most people want access to pornography, then it would be unacceptable for their local government to enforce anti-pornography standards upon them.

I think the real question is that should the internet be considered public activity?

There are several aspects to the issue. A web page may be considered public, or it may be in a password protected area available only to subscribers. Email may be considered private as well as instant messaging and VOIP. However, what if your computer has it’s files world readable over the internet? What if something happens accidentally and it causes you to violate community standards without willful intent?

I think a local law requiring ISPs to offer filtered public internet activity (websites, file sharing) as their cheapest option would be a good solution that doesn’t violate anyone’s rights. If you want unfiltered internet, just pay slightly more (it might only be a penny). If you want filtered internet, you don’t have to pay a price premium to get it. and community standards would only be enforced on the filtered tier.

>> The First Amendment 1) was meant to protect speech of a political nature, but if we accept that it protects all speech, pornography still isn’t speech under a reasonable defintion 2) is explicitly applied to the Federal government.

I am not sure if anyone has mentioned this yet ... but the 1st Amendment also applies to State governments, via the 14th Amendment.

The 14th Amendment states, in pertinent part ... “No State shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ...”

The “liberties” enumerated in the Bill of Rights have been incorporated into the “life, liberty and property” clause of the 14th Amendment ... which means States cannot infringe on the right to free speech (or religion, or search & seizure, etc.) any more than the Feds can.