CDA

[Earl Young]

     I agree it is a very strong decision - but the decision does leave 
     some room for a more targeted law - as several of the sites have made 
     clear.  The www.news.com site, for example, and the www.abcnews.com 
     site both contained material during the day suggesting that the 
     sponsors will be back for another bite at the apple with a narrower 
     law.  Those sites change their content during the day, so the 
     supporting articles may have evaporated by now.


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: CDA
Author:  Jim Hurd <jhurd at indiana.edu> at INTERNET
Date:    6/26/97 2:15 PM


     
 Still there were 7 votes strongly saying "no." 
     
On Thu, 26 Jun 1997, Earl Young wrote:
     
:     It was not quite a classic 9-0 decision.  Justice O'Connor filed a 
:     partial dissent, though that does not rise to the level of a complete 
:     disagreement with the majority. It's grayish.
:
:
:______________________________ Reply Separator 
_________________________________
:Subject: CDA
:Author:  jbfink at ogre.lib.muohio.edu at INTERNET 
:Date:    6/26/97 11:40 AM
:
:
:     
:The Communications Decency Act has been ruled unconstitutional in a 
:unanimous decision by the United States Supreme Court.
:     
:Take a look at http://www.ciec.org for info. 
:     
:-- john f.
:     
:
: