Research and summarize the issue of regulation of pornography in an Internet world that knows no state or national boundaries.
What should be done about it, if anything? Can you justify it with respect to the Constitution of the United States?
Research and summarize in a two -page Word document the issue of regulation of pornography in an Internet world that knows no state or national boundaries.
What should be done about it, if anything? Can you justify it with respect to the Constitution of the United States
The sexual persecution guidelines forbid the "display of offensive or obscene printed or visual material." However, in a library, which is both a public arena and a county workplace, the U.S. Constitution trumps any other concern..
At most unrestricted libraries in the USA, an adult can use pornography on a library computer more or less unregulated. Some ask customers to be thoughtful of others when viewing Web sites. If others are put off, librarians usually provide the viewer of the offending material with a "privacy screen." You are requested to think in the following terms: The US Bill of Rights explicitly forbids the government to censor advocacy of religious ideas or practices and guarantees the rights of citizens to speak and publish freely, as well as to "assemble" to demand "redress of grievances". In 1996, Congress passed the Communications Decency Act, with the aim of restricting Internet obscenity. Court rulings have struck down much of the law, however.
WE CANNOT FULLY JUSTIFY IT WITH THE HELP OF THE CONSTITUTION
What does the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution say?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Some relevant case laws:
Miller v. California:
You may consider the following: This 1973 case established that material can be judged obscene if, taken as a whole and judged by community standards, it appeals to the "prurient interest" in sex, depicts sexual conduct in a patently offensive manner, and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, and scientific value. Because a "variable tolerance" exists for explicit material, the Supreme Court left it up to communities to decide what they felt was obscene or indecent. If material is found to be obscene in this manner, it enjoys no First Amendment protection and the government can restrict its availability to everyone. The challenge that the boundary-free Internet poses is that distribution of content can't be limited community by community.
Ginsberg v. New York:
You are encouraged to think in these ...
Response is 1,544 words plus references.