Re: Fed appellate judge remarks re anonymity, free speech on the net

At 05:40 PM 9/12/96 -0700, Greg Broiles wrote:
>
>The Daily Journal, a LA/SF legal newspaper had an article today (9/12) about
>a lunchtime address given by Ninth Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski last Monday
>at an Internet Law Symposium in Seattle.
>
>The article quotes Kozinski as saying "I have a severe problem with
>anonymous E-mailers . . . You don't have a right to walk up to somebody's
>door and knock with a bag over your head." The article says Kozinski likened
>anonymous E-mail to menacing someone.

I wish somebody would go up to these guys and point out that since the 
Internet is, more or less, a huge, worldwide, VOLUNTARY association of 
people, _we_ don't think these judges have any sort of "right" to regulate 
its content.  Furthermore, it isn't clear that the proper regulators of the 
Internet shouldn't be an entirely different set of people selected by 
Internet users, RATHER than the same old government system that's managed to 
screw up the rest of the world so far.

And if you're looking for "menacing," I'd say that describes the 
government's behavior towards the Internet over the last year or two.


>Kozinski also suggested that computer-generated or morphed images of
>children involved in sexual acts may not be protected under the Constitution
>because of ongoing trauma to the child,

Which child?  Does he understand what "computer-generated" means?

>while computer-generated or morphed images of adults would be protected. 

What about the "ongoing trauma" to the adults?  I smell hypocrisy.

>The article says that Kozinski was skeptical that he or other federal judges
>necessarily agreed with the 3rd Circuit's ruling in _ACLU v. Reno_ (finding
>the CDA unconstitutional). 
>
>Kozinski is considered relatively conservative and relatively libertarian,
>as 9th Circuit judges go. 

Which means that he'll last just a little longer "when the cyber-revolution 
comes."


Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com

On Thu, 12 Sep 1996, jim bell wrote:

> At 05:40 PM 9/12/96 -0700, Greg Broiles wrote:
> ...
> >Kozinski also suggested that computer-generated or morphed images of
> >children involved in sexual acts may not be protected under the Constitution
> >because of ongoing trauma to the child,
> 
> Which child?  Does he understand what "computer-generated" means?
> 

Yes, he does, I think.  But I think "protected" above should read 
"prohibited."  [Note to Greg: could that be a typo?]  The key kiddie 
porn/1st amendment case (whose name escapes 
me for the moment) offered two reasons why kiddie porn could be regulated 
in the face of the first amendment.  One reason was the "on-going trauma to 
the child [victim]."In a morphed image, they is not (or at least may not be) 
an actual child victim.  Thus the "continuing trauma" rationale for 
regulation does not exist in that case. 

> >while computer-generated or morphed images of adults would be protected. 
 
Different standards frequently apply to adults and children, in spite of 
those of you who like to arm your toddlers!  :-)

> What about the "ongoing trauma" to the adults?  I smell hypocrisy.

Adults, for the most part, are supposed to take care of themselves.

EBD


> 
> >The article says that Kozinski was skeptical that he or other federal judges
> >necessarily agreed with the 3rd Circuit's ruling in _ACLU v. Reno_ (finding
> >the CDA unconstitutional). 
> >
> >Kozinski is considered relatively conservative and relatively libertarian,
> >as 9th Circuit judges go. 
> 
> Which means that he'll last just a little longer "when the cyber-revolution 
> comes."
> 
> 
> Jim Bell
> jimbell@pacifier.com
>