3 ms·

Griswold v. Connecticut?

• adamredwoods 2y ago
  That one is direct blocking. But in doing some research, I've found one against my own argument: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reno_v._American_Civil_Liberties_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reno_v._American_Civil_Liberti... Reno vs ACLU 1997 >> "We are persuaded that the CDA lacks the precision that the First Amendment requires when a statute regulates the content of speech. In order to deny minors access to potentially harmful speech, the CDA effectively suppresses a large amount of speech that adults have a constitutional right to receive and to address to one another. That 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. ... 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. As we have explained, the Government may not "reduc[e] the adult population ... to ... only what is fit for children."[1] ..but... >> Justice O'Connor, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist, agreed with the decision "as of 1997" but expressed interest in the idea of creating an "adult zone" on the Internet that was made inaccessible to minors through "gateway technology" that had been investigated by a lower district court. If such technology could be introduced, they wrote, zoning portions of the Internet to prohibit adult content could be as constitutional as such zoning is in the physical world.[8] Can a website with a specific barrier to entry be thought of as "zoning"? Perhaps.