Yes, but is "indecent" undefineable in ANY Constitutional manner? Isn't 
that the crux?  Can Congress limit indecent images in any context at all?

On Fri, 16 Feb 1996, Stan Bernstein wrote:
 
> On Fri, 16 Feb 1996, S. Finer wrote:
> 
> > The prelim enjoinment is following an unusual pattern.  The abortion 
> > provisions were NOT enjoined?  That surprised me.  And what is the 
> ork > dividing issue between "patently offensive" and "indecent" in current 
> > understanding?  Perhaps what I think of as "egregious garbage" as opposed 
> > to merely "blue" might correlate with "patently offensive".... 
> 
> [snip]
> The problem with "indecent" is that it is overbroad and underdefined. 

To the extent that it is "underdefined", then it must be improper to 
judge it "overbroad"......how can you judge the latter if you do not know 
the former?

> The Supreme Court 
> has yet to rule definitively as to what constitutes indecency and when it 
> should or should not be considered protected speech.

But it can do so, eh, in the future.....

> Hoards of litigants
> from all walks of life _still_ lining up to contest "indecent" (viz., 
> most recently the ALA) have been told by the government and the 
> pro-censorship lobby that they have nothing to fear. 

Hoards?  Or actually, a couple of dozen? let's struggle for some 
accuracy, ok?

> Judge Buckwalter
> in granting the TRO thought otherwise. The judge observed that under 
> "indecent," even those who conscientiously attempt compliance could 
> conceivably become felons.

And his ruling is not the final word, just the first shot.

> "Patently offensive", the so-called "b-prong" of the landmark Miller v. 
> California ruling as to what constitutes prosecutable obscenity, was 
> found by Judge Buckwalter to be upholdable in the context of the CDA.
> Unlike "indecent," the "patently offensive" b-prong  has gathered a 
> great deal of precedential mileage in noncyberspace obscenity 
> prosecutions. According to the b-prong, material is not generally found 
> prosecutably obscene unless it includes descriptions or depictions of sexual 
> activities which exceed community standards. 

sounds like the alt.binaries to me.....
 
> If "patently offensive" in the context of the CDA survives all of the legal 
> challenges it must inevitably face, it will be indeed interesting to 
> observe how the relevant courts define (or do not define) "the community"
> whose standards will govern permissible speech in Cyberspace.

not to mention IF the temporary enjoinment withstands the inevitable 
challenges....why did Buckholder not enjoin the abortion info language, 
223 (d) do you suppose....?

> [snip]
> > Simple nudity is not what the majority of folks object to...but rather,
> > the other, intensely profane, violent, ill, or corrupt degradation of nude
> > images, that motivate most people to object, especially IF kids have
> > simple access to it. 
> > 
> > In any event, this decision is preliminary.....and will stand for only a 
> > while at best. And in the meantime, some enforcement will apparantly go 
> > forward, at least until oral arguments are completed, and a judgement is 
> > rendered.  It appears that there may have been some differences of 
> > opinion within the panel itself.
> > 
> > Does the court post ascii text of the injunction to a BBS or web site? I 
> > know the 9th Circuit does something like this. 
> > 
> > > >Judge Buckwalter today issued a temporary restraining order to block
> > > >enforcement of part of the Communications Decency Act provision of the
> > > >telecommunications bill passed into law last week.
> > > >
> > > >47 U.S.C. Section 223(a) regarding "indecency" is enjoined.  "Patent
> > > >offensiveness" is *not* enjoined, nor is 223(d) regarding the abortion
> > > >provisions.


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

End of online-news-digest V1 #523
*********************************


From owner-online-news-digest@marketplace.com Fri Sep  8 06:32:41 1995
Received: from marketplace.com (majordom@marketplace.com [199.45.128.10]) by cnj.digex.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA23846 ; for ; Fri, 8 Sep 1995 06:32:38 -0400