Featured Articles

Nvidia GTX 770 spec is out

Nvidia GTX 770 spec is out

In addition to the GK110 based Nvidia Geforce GTX 780, we managed to get some details regarding the GK104-based GTX 770…

More...
Nvidia Geforce GTX 780 detailed

Nvidia Geforce GTX 780 detailed

We managed to confirm the full spec of the upcoming Nvidia Geforce GTX 780 graphics card as well as some performance…

More...
AMD shares take rollercoaster ride

AMD shares take rollercoaster ride

In the last 52 weeks AMD was on a rollercoaster ride, with prices ranging from $1.81 to $6.46. Yesterday it closed…

More...
HIS iCooler Turbo HD 7790 reviewed

HIS iCooler Turbo HD 7790 reviewed

Today we’ll take a closer look at a factory overclocked HD 7790, courtesy of HIS. The HIS HD 7790 iCooler Turbo…

More...
Kingston DataTraveler Ultimate 3.0 Generation 3 (32GB) reviewed

Kingston DataTraveler Ultimate 3.0 Generation 3 (32GB) reviewed

High capacity USB drives have become commonplace a while ago, but although some memory outfits are peddling huge drives, up…

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

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

 

Facebook activity

Latest Commented Articles

Recent Comments