Login to AccuWeather.com Premium Login to AccuWeather.com Professional Login to AccuWeather.com RadarPlus AccuWeather.com

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> New Massachusetts law extends censorship to IM, e-mail, Web
M4dRefluX
post Jul 14 2010, 12:18 PM
Post #1




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Member
Posts: 1,522
Joined: 21-November 09
From: Taylor, MI
Member No.: 19,811





QUOTE
It has long been illegal in Massachusetts to provide minors with "matter harmful to minors" under the state's "Crimes against chastity, morality, decency, and good order" law. The law targets obscenity, but only its physical forms, which makes it easier to enforce. When little Johnny steps inside the adult video store, clerks can check his ID before selling him that DVD of industrial sexuality. And anyone trying show hardcore *bleep* to a 13-year old knows exactly what they're doing, and who they're doing it to.

In April, this "harmful to minors" law received a brief update—not more than a couple of paragraphs—but they had profound implications for free expression. The new law extended "harmful to minors" to the Internet. In addition to smutty books, films, pamphlets, pictures, plays, dances, and statues (!), Massachusetts decided that the "matter" which might harm minors should now include:

electronic mail, instant messages, text messages, and any other communication created by means of use of the Internet or wireless network, whether by computer, telephone, or any other device or by any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photo-electronic or photo-optical system.

The law went into effect yesterday, and today it was challenged in court by the ACLU, the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, and several booksellers. By going digital, the expanded law suddenly moves away from the shop counter and onto the 'Net, where it "threatens Internet communications nationwide and even worldwide."

The ACLU argues in its complaint that "due to the very nature of the Internet, virtually every communication on the Internet may potentially be received by a minor and therefore may potentially be the basis for prosecution." With no easy way to verify anyone's age, everyone on the Internet must be treated as though they are minors. But what does that mean for material that adults can legally access?

"Because Internet speakers have no means to restrict minors in Massachusetts from accessing their communications, the Act effectively requires almost all discourse on the Internet—whether among citizens of Massachusetts or among users anywhere in the world—to be at a level suitable for young children," says the complaint. "The Act therefore bans an entire category of constitutionally protected speech between and among adults on the Internet" and is unconstitutional.

The ACLU also worries that the law makes it too easy to take down speech that would be legal for adults to engage in. "Any person who disagrees with or objects to sexual content on the Internet could cause a speaker to be prosecuted under the Act by having a minor view the online speech," says the complaint, "resulting in a 'heckler’s veto' of Internet speech' where the person who objects can always override those who do not.

According to the complaint, the new rules also inappropriately extend Massachusetts law over the entire Internet and violates the Interstate Commerce Clause of the constitution.

The ACLU wants the new legislative language tossed, though it does not object to the original "harmful to minors" law.

Source

Glad I don't live there, and I thought MA was a blue state.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Beck
post Jul 14 2010, 12:28 PM
Post #2




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Member
Posts: 29,250
Joined: 2-December 09
From: Temecula, California
Member No.: 19,931





It's like North Korea is Massachusetts's role model suddenly.


--------------------
Temecula Seasonal Precipitation 2014-2015: 0.00" (-0.00")
Normal to-date precipitation: 0.00"
Season began July 1st, 2014.

My Seasonal Precipitation 2014-2015: 0.00"

Temecula Weather Pages
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
M4dRefluX
post Jul 14 2010, 12:37 PM
Post #3




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Member
Posts: 1,522
Joined: 21-November 09
From: Taylor, MI
Member No.: 19,811





QUOTE(Beck @ Jul 14 2010, 01:28 PM) *
It's like North Korea is Massachusetts's role model suddenly.

Yeah, I'm confused. unsure.gif

You cannot enforce this kind of legislation anyways. There is no central location where the internet is managed.

This post has been edited by M4dRefluX: Jul 14 2010, 12:37 PM


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
wingsovernc
post Jul 14 2010, 12:42 PM
Post #4




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Member
Posts: 63,531
Joined: 1-March 10
From: North Carolina
Member No.: 22,154





Fascinating that this is happening in Mass. Definitely going to research this when time permits. I have to say though that usually when the ACLU is quoted, I tend to dismiss the entire article out of hand (but not this time). Any organization that would defend NAMBLA at a hugh discount (easily researched, they're proud of themselfes) has questionable judgement and no soul.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1103684/posts


--------------------













You don't lose friends, because real friends can never be lost. You lose
people masquerading as friends, and you're better for it.


~Mandy Hale
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
M4dRefluX
post Jul 14 2010, 12:47 PM
Post #5




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Member
Posts: 1,522
Joined: 21-November 09
From: Taylor, MI
Member No.: 19,811





QUOTE(wingsovernc @ Jul 14 2010, 01:42 PM) *
Fascinating that this is happening in Mass. Definitely going to research this when time permits. I have to say though that usually when the ACLU is quoted, I tend to dismiss the entire article out of hand (but not this time). Any organization that would defend NAMBLA at a hugh discount (easily researched, they're proud of themselfes) has questionable judgement and no soul.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1103684/posts

The ACLU has some good and bad things about it. That's one of the bad things. The good thing about them is they're trying hard to prevent America from becoming a pro-corporate theocratic police state which is the direction the country seems to be going in these days.

This post has been edited by M4dRefluX: Jul 14 2010, 12:48 PM


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jacksonville
post Jul 14 2010, 06:12 PM
Post #6




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Member
Posts: 1,310
Joined: 16-January 10
From: Somewhere SC
Member No.: 20,964





I can't believe that I actually agree with the ACLU. Yes Mass is a blue state, but this is just another extension of the government take over of our personal freedoms. So, hows that change working for you?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
wxdude1964
post Jul 14 2010, 08:13 PM
Post #7




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Member
Posts: 33,422
Joined: 16-March 08
From: Covington, VA
Member No.: 14,395





QUOTE(jacksonville @ Jul 14 2010, 07:12 PM) *
I can't believe that I actually agree with the ACLU. Yes Mass is a blue state, but this is just another extension of the government take over of our personal freedoms. So, hows that change working for you?

Those have always gone together, they've just become bolder since O got in office.
Yeah....change rolleyes.gif


--------------------
Snowfall 2007-2008 season-11.4 inches
Snowfall 2008-2009 season-13.1 inches
Snowfall 2009-2010 season-68.6 inches
Snowfall 2010-2011 season-19.5 inches
Snowfall 2011-2012 season-16.5 inches.
Snowfall 2012-2013 season-25.9 inches.
Snowfall 2013-2014 season-41.1 inches.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
john72ss
post Jul 14 2010, 11:16 PM
Post #8




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Member
Posts: 1,431
Joined: 16-July 08
Member No.: 15,257





yup! and its coming to a state near you! unless we stop it this november! VOTE!


--------------------
Help Save America: Buy American!
NHRA DRAGRACING = 1/4 mile 4.4 seconds
@ 330 mph ... 7000 hp
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mmi16
post Jul 15 2010, 01:04 AM
Post #9




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Member
Posts: 19,819
Joined: 27-January 08
Member No.: 13,204





Mass. is repudiating the freedoms espoused by the Founding Fathers.


--------------------
Never too old to have a happy childhood!


....................


Don't put an age limit on your dreams!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Removed_Member_drew peacock_*
post Jul 15 2010, 01:21 AM
Post #10







Guests








Al Gore invented the internet, maybe he could figure a workaround for Mas. laugh.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Removed_Member_OHweather2_*
post Jul 15 2010, 01:22 AM
Post #11







Guests








Rediculous. Have fun enforcing it anyways.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
M4dRefluX
post Jul 15 2010, 11:40 AM
Post #12




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Member
Posts: 1,522
Joined: 21-November 09
From: Taylor, MI
Member No.: 19,811





QUOTE(jacksonville @ Jul 14 2010, 07:12 PM) *
I can't believe that I actually agree with the ACLU. Yes Mass is a blue state, but this is just another extension of the government take over of our personal freedoms. So, hows that change working for you?

QUOTE(wxdude1964 @ Jul 14 2010, 09:13 PM) *
Those have always gone together, they've just become bolder since O got in office.
Yeah....change rolleyes.gif

Not quite.

Personal freedom, and economic policy are two different things. Two completely different things, some tend to confuse those things together. Democrats, and progressives have always supposedly stood for more personal freedoms, such as the right to marry whomever you want, privacy rights, and such but a strict economic policy.

Conservatives are usually split with the personal freedom thing, but almost all favor a lax economic policy.

The reason I mention the economic thing is some believe regulation and taxation to provide government services are an attack on personal freedom, therefore many progressives have been made to look anti-freedom. This event however doesn't make any sense, I guess MA will be a red state after this year's elections.

Anyways, this action wouldn't necessarily be progressive, or liberal in my book. This would be something I would expect to happen down south, not up here.

This post has been edited by M4dRefluX: Jul 15 2010, 12:15 PM


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CMeyers
post Jul 15 2010, 01:07 PM
Post #13




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Member
Posts: 1,075
Joined: 29-May 10
From: Delton, MI
Member No.: 22,879





QUOTE(M4dRefluX @ Jul 15 2010, 12:40 PM) *
Not quite.

Personal freedom, and economic policy are two different things. Two completely different things, some tend to confuse those things together. Democrats, and progressives have always supposedly stood for more personal freedoms, such as the right to marry whomever you want, privacy rights, and such but a strict economic policy.

Conservatives are usually split with the personal freedom thing, but almost all favor a lax economic policy.

The reason I mention the economic thing is some believe regulation and taxation to provide government services are an attack on personal freedom, therefore many progressives have been made to look anti-freedom. This event however doesn't make any sense, I guess MA will be a red state after this year's elections.

Anyways, this action wouldn't necessarily be progressive, or liberal in my book. This would be something I would expect to happen down south, not up here.


That's not quite the case either.

Economics policy and personal freedom are not two different things, at least not in the realistic sense. In fact, they are much the same. The freedom to produce and reap the rewards of such and the rights to private property are two of the most basic personal freedoms there are. Economic policy almost always infringes on those. But, that's a different argument for a different day. I'll try to be concise in my opinion on this matter.

All parties like to infringe on personal freedom, but two groups in particular are the best at it. They do it for very different reasons but the affect ends up being the same, in that freedoms are abridged. The religious right is the first and the progressive liberals are the second. The religious right likes to base their moral code off the bible or other religious ideals which leads to laws that limit or restrict some freedoms. Abortion comes to mind among other things. They do this in the name of God and his word.

The progressive liberals have a different reason for making policy that limits personal freedoms. They do it "for your own good", or "to protect you". In other words, you should be happy they're restricting your freedoms because it's for your own benefit. Nevermind the real reasons they want to pass the laws. A proposed "fat tax" would fall under this category.

The two are equally damaging to the idea of personal rights and freedoms. I think the religious rights method is more patently incorrect than the progressives, mainly because I don't think that the bible is anything more than a piece of fiction. However, I think the progressives methodology is more dishonest, since it usually isn't "your best interest" that was the reason for the legislation, rather it's just a lie to sell it to the public.

Anyway, this particular law sounds very much like it could have been a joint venture between the two. The religious right is usually the one complaining most about the availability of pornography and material like that, which is part of what this law is directed at. And, the progressives would see this as an opportunity to gain more revenue in the form of fines and also it's a good chance to claim that "they're protecting the kids".

The beauty of the law from a politician's standpoint is that it's unenforceable in any real sense. It makes so many things potentially illegal that they'll be able to fine juts about whomever and whenever they want. The only way to control people is to make them feel guilty. The easiest way to do that is to make so many things illegal that they just can't help but be guilty of something.


--------------------
ChsChargers09 - Please be aware that there is a significant chance I was being sarcastic in the above comment. Thank you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
M4dRefluX
post Jul 15 2010, 02:20 PM
Post #14




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Member
Posts: 1,522
Joined: 21-November 09
From: Taylor, MI
Member No.: 19,811





QUOTE(CMeyers @ Jul 15 2010, 02:07 PM) *
That's not quite the case either.

Economics policy and personal freedom are not two different things, at least not in the realistic sense. In fact, they are much the same. The freedom to produce and reap the rewards of such and the rights to private property are two of the most basic personal freedoms there are. Economic policy almost always infringes on those. But, that's a different argument for a different day. I'll try to be concise in my opinion on this matter.

All parties like to infringe on personal freedom, but two groups in particular are the best at it. They do it for very different reasons but the affect ends up being the same, in that freedoms are abridged. The religious right is the first and the progressive liberals are the second. The religious right likes to base their moral code off the bible or other religious ideals which leads to laws that limit or restrict some freedoms. Abortion comes to mind among other things. They do this in the name of God and his word.

The progressive liberals have a different reason for making policy that limits personal freedoms. They do it "for your own good", or "to protect you". In other words, you should be happy they're restricting your freedoms because it's for your own benefit. Nevermind the real reasons they want to pass the laws. A proposed "fat tax" would fall under this category.

The two are equally damaging to the idea of personal rights and freedoms. I think the religious rights method is more patently incorrect than the progressives, mainly because I don't think that the bible is anything more than a piece of fiction. However, I think the progressives methodology is more dishonest, since it usually isn't "your best interest" that was the reason for the legislation, rather it's just a lie to sell it to the public.

Anyway, this particular law sounds very much like it could have been a joint venture between the two. The religious right is usually the one complaining most about the availability of pornography and material like that, which is part of what this law is directed at. And, the progressives would see this as an opportunity to gain more revenue in the form of fines and also it's a good chance to claim that "they're protecting the kids".

The beauty of the law from a politician's standpoint is that it's unenforceable in any real sense. It makes so many things potentially illegal that they'll be able to fine juts about whomever and whenever they want. The only way to control people is to make them feel guilty. The easiest way to do that is to make so many things illegal that they just can't help but be guilty of something.

I get what you're saying. Both parties are authoritarian. This I know.

I'd debate the economic thing with ya, but I've been down that road quite a few times here, and it didn't go too well. I'm an oddball here whereas I'm not the typical liberal, nor am I the least bit conservative. I've been outcast-ed too many times. laugh.gif

This post has been edited by M4dRefluX: Jul 15 2010, 02:23 PM


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jacksonville
post Jul 15 2010, 07:25 PM
Post #15




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Member
Posts: 1,310
Joined: 16-January 10
From: Somewhere SC
Member No.: 20,964





QUOTE(M4dRefluX @ Jul 15 2010, 03:20 PM) *
I get what you're saying. Both parties are authoritarian. This I know.

I'd debate the economic thing with ya, but I've been down that road quite a few times here, and it didn't go too well. I'm an oddball here whereas I'm not the typical liberal, nor am I the least bit conservative. I've been outcast-ed too many times. laugh.gif



I agree with you on the both parties are authoritarian. I am a fiscal conservative. I could care less what you do with your life, as long as I don't have to pay for it. When I start having to pay for your lifestyle mistakes, that is when I drift to the social right. The liberals want to have control over your every move as it increases their power. Who are you going to vote for when they hand you someone else's money? The taxpayer is now the minority, so basically the Democrats have bought unlimited control, at least until people wake up. I just hope it happens in November. Then we have to watch a lame duck congress passing everything Obama throws at them.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
M4dRefluX
post Jul 15 2010, 07:37 PM
Post #16




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Member
Posts: 1,522
Joined: 21-November 09
From: Taylor, MI
Member No.: 19,811





QUOTE(jacksonville @ Jul 15 2010, 08:25 PM) *
I agree with you on the both parties are authoritarian. I am a fiscal conservative. I could care less what you do with your life, as long as I don't have to pay for it. When I start having to pay for your lifestyle mistakes, that is when I drift to the social right. The liberals want to have control over your every move as it increases their power. Who are you going to vote for when they hand you someone else's money? The taxpayer is now the minority, so basically the Democrats have bought unlimited control, at least until people wake up. I just hope it happens in November. Then we have to watch a lame duck congress passing everything Obama throws at them.

The candidates that impress me never make it through the primaries. I never was an Obama supporter. I was a Dennis Kucinich supporter in '08.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jacksonville
post Jul 15 2010, 07:46 PM
Post #17




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Member
Posts: 1,310
Joined: 16-January 10
From: Somewhere SC
Member No.: 20,964





QUOTE(M4dRefluX @ Jul 15 2010, 08:37 PM) *
The candidates that impress me never make it through the primaries. I never was an Obama supporter. I was a Dennis Kucinich supporter in '08.


Oh no, wasn't he the one who said he was abducted by aliens? This is not helping your cause very much. By the way my candidate didn't make it through either, Mitt Romney.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
M4dRefluX
post Jul 15 2010, 07:52 PM
Post #18




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Member
Posts: 1,522
Joined: 21-November 09
From: Taylor, MI
Member No.: 19,811





QUOTE(jacksonville @ Jul 15 2010, 08:46 PM) *
Oh no, wasn't he the one who said he was abducted by aliens? This is not helping your cause very much. By the way my candidate didn't make it through either, Mitt Romney.

I liked his views. No one from the Republican party impresses me, except maybe Ron Paul. That's about it.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WNYLakeEffect
post Jul 15 2010, 07:54 PM
Post #19




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Member
Posts: 2,820
Joined: 14-December 08
From: Lakewood, NY
Member No.: 16,475





QUOTE(M4dRefluX @ Jul 15 2010, 08:52 PM) *
I liked his views. No one from the Republican party impresses me, except maybe Ron Paul. That's about it.

Attached Image

Seriously...

If Hillary isn't running in 2012, I'll probably be going for Ron Paul, assuming he runs.


--------------------
Winter 2010-11 Snow: 148.0"
Winter 2009-10 Snow: 128.3"
Winter 2008-09 Snow: 175.0"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jacksonville
post Jul 15 2010, 07:57 PM
Post #20




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Member
Posts: 1,310
Joined: 16-January 10
From: Somewhere SC
Member No.: 20,964





QUOTE(M4dRefluX @ Jul 15 2010, 08:52 PM) *
I liked his views. No one from the Republican party impresses me, except maybe Ron Paul. That's about it.

You, impressed by Ron Paul, now that impresses me. He scares even me by his extreme views and he is not electable to a national office because of his views. Some of his ideas are very neccessary. He is the complete opposite of almost everything you have ever posted. Maybe there is hope for you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 24th July 2014 - 12:02 PM