Thanks Jeff for a well thought out and intelligent response.
Jeff, as you may recall from our Pluvia vs. Westergaard days I am strong opponent of Protected Speech even when done anonymously:
Message 2058228
Message 2066857
However, I do oppose direct links to pornography on SI. I believe at a minimum the links should take one to an innocuous front door which identifies the material to be viewed along with some type of "age verification" button. It is my understanding that this is SI's unofficial position as well. If I am incorrect, perhaps someone from administration will jump in and correct me.
In Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 96-511, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote, It is true that we have repeatedly recognized the governmental interest in protecting children from harmful materials. But that interest does not justify an unnecessarily broad suppression of speech addressed to adults. The court continued by stating that the burden on adult speech is unacceptable if less restrictive alternatives would be at least as effective in achieving the legitimate purpose that the statute was enacted to serve.
I believe this is the balance that SI has tried to strike with their enforcement of their terms of use in regards to links to pornographic sites. Requiring an innocuous front door would not appear to me to be unreasonable requirement.
I most also agree with David Lawrence's post earlier. When we agreed to become members of SI, we agreed to play by their rules!
I believe the terms of use state: You agree not to use the service for illegal purposes or for the transmission of material that is unlawful, harassing, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, abusive, threatening, harmful, vulgar, obscene, tortious, improper or otherwise objectionable, or that infringes or may infringe the intellectual property or other rights of another.
Cisco |
