| Top Posters Since October 2003 |
|---|
dp1 | 4000+ | orolan | 4000+ | Navigatr1 | 2500+ | Silvert... | 2500+ | 1dadof5 | 2500+ | Valerie | 2000+ | steve | 1500+ | victori... | 1000+ | myoung | 1000+ | rabbitr... | 750+ | HPierce | 750+ | poetsdr... | 750+ | Renunci... | 750+ | lj | 750+ | fallenone | 500+ | DoTheCr... | 500+ | marta | 500+ | momhelp... | 500+ | prozac | 500+ | rebel51 | 500+ | PVulcan | 250+ | anti | 250+ | rodsmith | 250+ | LockEmUp | 250+ | Quest | 250+ | artie | 250+ | KK | 250+ | LostTime | 250+ | TGoodman | 250+ | amberleaf | 250+ | deadmom... | 250+ | brennus | 100+ | scarlett | 100+ | mousein... | 100+ | thepar | 100+ | assumpt... | 100+ | lildrafire | 100+ | JakeLF | 100+ | MrTruth | 100+ | june5 | 100+ |
| Newest Users |
|---|
| Registered within the last 72 hours. | | buttwaxer | | chooch | | genospice | | hud123 | | kawaski | | kelstress | | unknowable |
|
|
Forum: Old Message Board
Thread (Discussion): supremes to hear 'net porn law
Switch to Flat View
Message 118251 (In Reply to Message 118244)
Re: supremes to hear 'net porn law
Posted by x_marta
on Oct 14, 2003 08:35 PM | Also by x_marta
| Gender: ,
Age Bracket: ,
State: ,
Country: |
orolan wrote:
>
> Right. I don't have one. Don't have a home phone, either. My
> cell phone is in the name of my business. I'm a "non-person"
> as far as the Net goes, which is why my name will never show
> up in a search engine, in the MSN White Pages or in any other
> of the people-finder sites. I'd like to keep it that way. But
> if I were one who frequented adult sites, I would have to
> choose between that privacy and my desire to look at the sites.
No you wouldn't. Most quality sites offer multiple forms of payment, e.g., paypal, ibill, with a check, etc. all of which are performed discretely. But even if this weren't the case, come on, where in the constitution does it say that the government has to bend over backward to make sure free speech is protected? The standard for free speech protection is that there must not be an undue burden placed on one kind of speech because of its content. That a tiny percentage of porn site customers could not gain access because they don't have a credit card and personal phone number would not, in my opinion, be an undue burden on the operators of these sites. What, would they lose half of a hundredth of their business?
> Nobody should be required to surrender privacy in order to
> exercise a constitutional right. That would be a contradiction.
That's funny. People surrender privacy to exercise constitutional rights all the time: getting a state I.D. and social security #, providing identification to get a library card, getting permits to demonstrate for a cause, etc. The only requirement (in this case) is that the burden not rise to the level of dampening free speech, i.e. make it such that the operators of sites with sexual content can no longer keep running their websites. In the case of sites that are offering free anatomical or medical information, I can see the undue burden, but in regards to pornography, I do not, especially if one argues that there is a highly compelling state interest in keeping web pornography from children.
| See an abbreviation or acronym, but don't know what it stands for? Consult
the Glossary. |
Switch to Flat View
Message 118244
Re: supremes to hear 'net porn law
Posted by x_orolan
on Oct 14, 2003 07:10 PM | Also by x_orolan
| Gender: ,
Age Bracket: ,
State: ,
Country: |
Thread
118217, x_simon, Oct 14, 2003 12:29 PM [supremes to hear 'net porn law]
118230, x_orolan, Oct 14, 2003 03:11 PM [Re: supremes to hear 'net porn law]
118232, x_Silverthorne, Oct 14, 2003 03:38 PM [Re: supremes to hear 'net porn law]
118244, x_orolan, Oct 14, 2003 07:10 PM [Re: supremes to hear 'net porn law]
118251, x_marta, Oct 14, 2003 08:35 PM [Re: supremes to hear 'net porn law]
118274, x_orolan, Oct 15, 2003 10:31 AM [Re: supremes to hear 'net porn law]
118290, x_marta, Oct 15, 2003 07:59 PM [Re: supremes to hear 'net porn...]
Forum Home
| Top of Thread
|
|
