~terry
Sat, Feb 21, 1998 (16:19)
seed
The Supreme Court's July 1997 decision in ACLU v. Reno has been hailed as
a victory for free speech and for the Net. But what are its real
implications for future efforts to regulate speech in the on-line world?
This panel will bring together three eminent lawyers with very different
views of the case to debate its meaning and discuss what happens next.
Ann Beeson, American Civil Liberties Union
Lance Rose, Attorney
Eugene Volokh, UCLA School of Law
~terry
Wed, Mar 4, 1998 (07:08)
#1
From Danielle Gallo's account:
(Danielle is a student of Lorrie Cranor)
Anne Beeson of the ACLU, attorney Lance Rose, and UCLA school law
professor Eugene Volokh discussed the Communications Decency Act
decision. Volokh) argued that although the CDA was a victory for free
speech, the decision should be examined with scrutiny. Volokh felt the
CDA decision suffered from poor fact finding. Volokh's documentation
regarding the Reno v. ACLU decision is worth accessing
(http://www.law.ucla.edu/Faculty/volokh/index.htm). Ann Beeson
(http://www.aclu.org) claimed that celebration for the CDA was
significantly well justified. Beeson also stated that the architecture
of the Internet promotes freedom of expression, and threats to this
right lie in Senator McCain's bill, ratings/private censorship
(including PICS), and library filtering. One interesting example
Beeson cited was a student whose individual homepage was removed after
people complained about it. As expected, this raised a strong reaction
from the crowd.