I was catching up on
Mistress Matisse's blog, when I noticed a very perturbing entry.
The Communications Decency Act. An unbridled assault on the first amendment and on our freedoms. More after the break.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
National Coalition for Sexual Freedom
Contact:Susan Wright, NCSF Spokesperson(917) 848-6544
Communications Decency Act (CDA) Lawsuit July 26, 2005 - New York, NY
A three judge panel has made a decision in the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom and acclaimed photographer Barbara Nitke's challenge against the Communications Decency Act (CDA) which criminalizes free speech on the Internet. According to the court, the plaintiffs presented "insufficient evidence" to support findings that the variation in community standards is substantial enough that protected speech is inhibited by the CDA.
According to the decision handed down by the Federal District Court for the Southern District of NY, in case #01 CIV 11476 (RMB): "The plaintiffs have offered evidence that there are at least 1.4 million Websites that mention "BDSM" (bondage, discipline, and sadomasochism)... The plaintiffs have submitted images and written works that represent material posted to a small number of Websites, that they contend may be considered obscene in some communities but not in others. These examples provide us with an insufficient basis upon which to make a finding as to the total amount of speech that is protected in some communities but that is prohibited by the CDA because it is obscene in other communities."
The court agreed that NCSF members and Barbara Nitke are genuinely at risk of prosecution under the CDA and that their speech has in fact been inhibited. According to the decision: "Nitke's fear that the CDA will be enforced against her is actual and well-founded. She has submitted objective evidence to substantiate the claim that she has been deterred from exercising her free-speech rights, and this fear is based on a reasonable interpretation of the CDA... NCSF has submitted objective evidence that one of its member organizations, TES, has been deterred from exercising its free-speech rights and that this deterrence is based on a well-founded fear that the CDA would be enforced against it."
John Wirenius, attorney for the plaintiffs, says, "We are disappointed that the court did not act on the uncontradicted evidence we presented that artists and citizens who are sexual minorities are disproportionately censored by the Government's ability to pick its own forum and standard for obscenity cases. The government brings obscenity cases where it knows it can get convictions."
"I am appalled by this decision," says co-plaintiff Barbara Nitke, a fine art photographer who explores sexual relationships in her work. "It is vitally important to keep the Internet free for education, the arts and open discussion on sexual topics. This law is a form of unfair censorship that must be stopped. I am absolutely going to appeal this."
NCSF challenged against the CDA law because personal websites and chat groups that include discussions and images of SM, swinging or polyamory are at risk of prosecution. Membership groups that maintain educational websites about adult sexuality are also at risk.
Under the Bush administration, nearly 40 prosecutors, as well as investigators and FBI agents are spending millions of dollars to bring anti-obscenity cases to courthouses across the country for the first time in 10 years. Obscenity is judged by "local community standards," which means that a religious political extremist in the Midwest can claim that a website from San Francisco is obscene and therefore illegal. NCSF is dedicated to proactively challenging the rise in obscenity and pornography prosecutions, including filing an Amicus Briefs in support of Extreme Associates, and supporting the Free Speech Coalition's injunction filed against the expanded record-keeping provisions of 18 U.S.C. B' 2257.
To contribute to the expenses of the CDA lawsuit, go to: http://www.ncsfreedom.org/donations.htm
Every dollar goes directly to ensuring free speech on the Internet.
National Coalition for Sexual Freedom - http://www.ncsfreedom.org
Barbara Nitke - http://www.barbaranitke.com
Good thing I get paid soon.
But wait, there's more! I looked up the Communications Decency Act to provide all of you with the chance to read it in it's entirety. Here you go:
What does this mean for you? Well, Amazon sells books about sexual topics, and even sells sex toys. Thousands of them in fact. Amazon will be subject to prosecution under this. Any online sex toy store you go to that is based in the United States will be targeted by this. Do you like looking at internet porn? I know I do, and I know there's got to be a lot of Republicans and Democrats out there who do. That'll be out the window. Personals websites? All it has to do is offend Jesusland and it's out. Websites for clubs in San Francisco, Seattle, New York, and elsewhere will be subject to holy judgment by Miss Prudey Manners of Alabama. Senator Rick "Man on dog" Santorum will be able to decide what is and isn't obscene.
Some people may think that the entirety of the CDA was struck down waaay back in the 90's as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. This is, in fact, inaccurate, only part of it was struck down. The parts referenced above are very much still active. The parts that affect so-called "obscene" material online are still in effect, and do you think that this administration will want those remaining parts taken out? Do you think that the "new" Supreme Court will support freedom of speech in a situation like this?
Oh, and for all the people wondering why I might have a problem with Hillary Clinton, this is something her husband signed into law, and given her stance against GTA:SA, I have no reason to believe that her position on the CDA is any different from George Bush.