Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : FRANKLIN TELECOM (FTEL) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Stephen B. Temple who wrote (26299)	1/29/1998 6:05:00 PM
From: lostmymoney	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 41046

Some ought to read the law before threats are made. Especially since FTEL and FNET are providers. The NEXT toolbar takes all liability from SI, friends. 89. The Act establishes several defenses a defendant may assert in a criminal prosecution under the Act. First, no person shall be held to have violated subsection (a) or (d) solely for providing access or connection to or from a facility, system, or network not under that person's control, including transmission, downloading, intermediate storage, access software, or other related capabilities that are incidental to providing such access or connection that does not include the creation of the content of the communication. 140. For these reasons, plaintiffs reasonably fear that the defense in 47 U.S.C. 223(e)(1) may not protect online service providers from criminal conviction for indecent expression by third parties when that expression is located on the providers' computers (such as when an individual computer user posts a vulgar message to an online discussion). Plaintiffs reasonably fear that the defense may apply only to the extent an online service acts as a mere conduit to enable its subscribers to gain access to another network. 141. The speech at issue in this case is fully protected by the First Amendment. "Indecent" speech or "patently offensive" communications, while considered by some to be offensive or sexually suggestive, are not obscene. Such speech can have serious literary, artistic, political or other merit, and thus has considerable value to adults and to society as a whole. 145. The government has no legitimate, much less "compelling," interest in preventing adults from sending or receiving "indecent" or "patently offensive" speech. The government has no legitimate, much less "compelling," interest in preventing older children from sending or receiving speech that would only be deemed "indecent" or "patently offensive" if communicated to younger children.