4 ms·
I see no reason that whether material is objectionable only applies to pornography. However typically when someone tries to call something not pornography objec
by snagglegaggle 7y ago
I see no reason that whether material is objectionable only applies to pornography. However typically when someone tries to call something not pornography objectionable whatever the case is about is thrown out, eventually, on first amendment concerns.
> Regardless, Ninth Circuit precedent is what it is.
Careful. Bad precedent should not stand just because it is precedent.
- rayiner 7y agoThe statute creates a safe harbor for filtering “material” that is “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.” One of the rules of interpreting statutes is that you interpret the scope of catch-all terms in a list consistently with the preceding elements. The preceding elements refer to pornographic or violent content. That would suggest that you shouldn’t interpret “otherwise objectionable” to include things like adware or spyware.
- nybble41 7y agoYou don't think adware and spyware could be considered akin to "harassing" material? Obscenity and violence aren't the only categories explicitly called out in that list.
- snagglegaggle 7y ago4 of the 6 explicit criteria given are not inherently sexual in nature, and only 2 of those 4 are in any way related to violence (but even harassing is not necessarily violent, so it may be 1). Like I said, the only case law that exists relates to pornographic material as it is the most unpopular. That wording was ripped from other anti-obscenity laws that have had a hard time in court but have not yet been entirely struck down.