Featured Articles

IHS teardown reveals Galaxy S5 BOM

IHS teardown reveals Galaxy S5 BOM

Research firm IHS got hold of Samsung’s new flagship smartphone and took it apart to the last bolt to figure out…

More...
Galaxy S5, HTC One M8 available selling well

Galaxy S5, HTC One M8 available selling well

Samsung’s Galaxy S5 has finally gone on sale and it can be yours for €699, which is quite a lot of…

More...
Intel lists Haswell refresh parts

Intel lists Haswell refresh parts

Intel has added a load of Haswell refresh parts to its official price list and there really aren’t any surprises to…

More...
Respawn confirms Titanfall DLC for May

Respawn confirms Titanfall DLC for May

During his appearance at PAX East panel and confirmed on Twitter, Titanfall developer Respawn confirmed that the first DLC pack for…

More...
KFA2 GTX 780 Ti Hall Of Fame reviewed

KFA2 GTX 780 Ti Hall Of Fame reviewed

KFA2 gained a lot of overclocking experience with the GTX 780 Hall of Fame (HOF), which we had a chance to…

More...
Frontpage Slideshow | Copyright © 2006-2010 orks, a business unit of Nuevvo Webware Ltd.
Thursday, 28 October 2010 09:16

Judge overturns daft US internet law

Written by Nick Farell
y_lawbookhammer

Because not everyone on the Internet is a kid
A daft US law which insisted that all Internet content be censored so that it would not harm a seven year old child has been tossed out by a Judge. The law was drafted in Massachusetts which is famous for the Salem Witch trials and has been coming up with stupid court cases ever since.

Lawmakers came up with the idea that they should have a law covering "matter harmful to minors" and that it should cover the World Wide Wibble. The politicians were spooked when a state supreme court ruled that the "matter" which could harm minors did not legally include electronic transmissions. This overturned the conviction of a man who engaged in sex chat with someone who he believed to be 13.

The politicians rushed through a law “to protect children” without engaging brain. They extended "harmful to minors" clauses to the Internet, dirty books, films, pamphlets, pictures, plays, dances, and apparently statues.

So this means that all email, instant messages, text messages, and any other communication created by means of use of the Internet or wireless network, all had to be written so that they did not harm a seven year old child. Not surprisingly the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) complained about the law and said that it was too broad.

It meant that every communication on the Internet may potentially be received by a minor and therefore may potentially be the basis for prosecution. To make matter worse, because Internet speakers have no means to restrict minors in Massachusetts from accessing their communications, the Act meant that the entire Internet had to be written to a level suitable for young children.

Federal judge Rya Zobel agreed and issuing a preliminary injunction on the April amendments for violating the First Amendment right to free speech. The problem, she said was that the new law failed to mention that the content had to be targeted at a minor.

Nick Farell

E-mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
blog comments powered by Disqus

Comments  

 
+5 #1 nECrO 2010-10-28 19:30
It doesn't surprise me that politicians anywhere would think of something this stupid. They are after all polticians, not normal people. What bothers me is that it got passed in the first place. But I guess that shouldn't surprise me either. "Make something idiot proof and they will make a better idiot".....
 
 
+2 #2 yasin 2010-10-28 23:24
those 7 year olds must be rubbing their hands in glee...
 

To be able to post comments please log-in with Disqus

 

Facebook activity

Latest Commented Articles

Recent Comments