Comments on: No new grants http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/no-new-grants/ The Supreme Court of the United States blog Thu, 26 Jun 2008 21:56:34 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: 14th Amendment http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/no-new-grants/comment-page-1/#comment-9103 14th Amendment Mon, 20 Mar 2006 15:40:07 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/no-new-grants/#comment-9103 Regarding <i>Nitke</i>, parts of the Communications Decency Act had already been struck down in <i>Reno v. ACLU</i>, specifically because of overbreadth with respect to the First Amendment. Justice Stevens held this was sufficient without having to reach the Fifth Amendment claim of vagueness, which apparently was the question here. In <i>Reno</i>, The Court also severed the constitutional question of CDA's ban on obscene speech since it enjoys no First Amendment protection, evidently clearing the way for CDA to apply to obscene speech on the Internet. Since it relied upon <i>Miller</i> to define obscenity, the "local community standards" prong of the test is still in effect. How this will apply to the Internet and how the CDA enforcement powers will be invoked remains to be seen. The Court seems to have dodged a thorny question on this one. Regarding Nitke, parts of the Communications Decency Act had already been struck down in Reno v. ACLU, specifically because of overbreadth with respect to the First Amendment. Justice Stevens held this was sufficient without having to reach the Fifth Amendment claim of vagueness, which apparently was the question here.

In Reno, The Court also severed the constitutional question of CDA’s ban on obscene speech since it enjoys no First Amendment protection, evidently clearing the way for CDA to apply to obscene speech on the Internet. Since it relied upon Miller to define obscenity, the “local community standards” prong of the test is still in effect.

How this will apply to the Internet and how the CDA enforcement powers will be invoked remains to be seen. The Court seems to have dodged a thorny question on this one.

]]> By: Philosopher http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/no-new-grants/comment-page-1/#comment-9102 Philosopher Mon, 20 Mar 2006 15:01:24 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/no-new-grants/#comment-9102 I don't see Abdur'Rahman v. Bredesen on the list. I thought a response was due today? TG responds - the state took an extension. I don’t see Abdur’Rahman v. Bredesen on the list. I thought a response was due today?

TG responds – the state took an extension.

]]>