Featured Articles

Intel refreshes CPU roadmap

Intel refreshes CPU roadmap

Intel has revealed an update to its CPU roadmap and some things have changed in 2015 and beyond. Let’s start with the…

More...
Hands on: Nvidia Shield Tablet with Android 5.0

Hands on: Nvidia Shield Tablet with Android 5.0

We broke the news of Nvidia's ambitious gaming tablet plans back in May and now the Shield tablet got a bit…

More...
Nokia N1 Android tablet ships in Q1 2015

Nokia N1 Android tablet ships in Q1 2015

Nokia has announced its first Android tablet and when we say Nokia, we don’t mean Microsoft. The Nokia N1 was designed…

More...
Marvell launches octa-core 64-bit PXA1936

Marvell launches octa-core 64-bit PXA1936

Marvell is better known for its storage controllers, but the company doesn’t want to give up on the smartphone and…

More...
Nvidia GTX 970 SLI tested

Nvidia GTX 970 SLI tested

Nvidia recently released two new graphics cards based on its latest Maxwell GPU architecture, with exceptional performance-per-watt. The Geforce GTX 970…

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

 

Facebook activity

Latest Commented Articles

Recent Comments