Anti-Porn Law Struck Down 6
Curtis Diesel writes "C|Net is reporting that a Virginia Judge has struck down a law that made it a criminal offense to deliver or make available sexually explicit material to juveniles. This law didn't really have a leg to stand on since it was passed." One of those well-meaning, but not thought out laws - good riddance.
uh oh (Score:1)
just when he was quieting down...
Relying on the courts ? (Score:1)
Are the legislators essentially just relying on the courts to strike down bad laws like this ? Surely after the CDA judgement there can't have been much doubt that this was unconstitutional ?
There isn't such strong free speech protection in the UK (though the recently passed Human Rights Act may change that), but the UK doesn't tend to pass such awful acts in the first place - perhaps because they can't rely on the courts to tidy up the bad laws... ?
Re:uh oh (Score:1)
For a good laugh, check out his web site at http://www.dcmcnamara.com/ [dcmcnamara.com].
=================================
Re:Relying on the courts? YES (Score:1)
Are the legislators essentially just relying on the courts to strike down bad laws like this ? Surely after the CDA judgement there can't have been much doubt that this was unconstitutional ?
(The following is directed at USA citizens only.)
The short answer:   yes.
Remember that the #2 "customer" of a legislator is the voter in his/her district. (The #1 customer, of course, is the donor to his/her election campaigns.) The legislator's customers measure the legislator by looking at his/her voting record, by looking at the laws the legislator got up and pushed to encourage passage, by looking at the speeches the legislator made for or against specific topics.
The voters in general and the contributors in particular don't help matters by identifying one or two issues that are "important" and "must be fixed now" whether the legislator agrees or not. (We have single-issue people here on /. so don't be smug.)
Notice that the Courts do not go back through legislative intent and say "The contribution from Senator Blowhard is what makes this bill unconstitutional." Pinning the unconstitutional tail on the donkey-rep is almost impossible for those people who want a life...and the press doesn't consider it enough of a story to dig on our behalf. (And frankly, as a journalist, I agree with the press on that matter.) Voters therefore can't recognize that their legislator is being ineffective on the issue, ineffective because said legislator is unwilling or unable to craft a law that meets the goal yet passes Constitutional muster.
In many respects, we voters have paid so much attention to "litmus tests" that we have forgotten that we are sending a person to Washington DC to decide on thousands of issues without getting a firm grasp on how that person will vote, let alone view the issues. We vote based on slogans, poll-directed speeches, appearance (think back to Kennedy v Nixon), and how Aunt Edna feels about the candidate. Not to mention how the candidate says s/he feels about our pet peeve.
Even people who read /.
And what happens when the Sh** hits the fan? (Score:1)
Re:And what happens when the Sh** hits the fan? (Score:1)
Which legs would those be? It was incredibly unconstitutional, vague, and poorly written, to boot.
not because it was needed or that effective but at least parents had some sort of reassurance that they their kids "spiritual welfare" wasn't at risk
What defines spiritual welfare? Who says porn is bad for the spirit? Sure, Christians may believe this, but over 70% of the world is non-christian. A good number of people are atheistic or agnostic. There's alot of people who seem to think that morals have to be enforced by law. Not everybody shares the same morals. Try to be open minded.