Re:EFF Urges Court to Reconsider Decision That Harms Interne...
by rayiner on Tuesday November 12, 2019 @10:40AM
(#21514911)
The statute creates a safe harbor for filtering “material” that is “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.” One of the rules of interpreting statutes is that you interpret the scope of catch-all terms in a list consistently with the preceding elements. The preceding elements refer to pornographic or violent content. That would suggest that you shouldn’t interpret “otherwise objectionable” to include things like adware or spyware.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:EFF Urges Court to Reconsider Decision That Harms Interne...
by snagglegaggle on Tuesday November 12, 2019 @03:46PM
(#21518002)
4 of the 6 explicit criteria given are not inherently sexual in nature, and only 2 of those 4 are in any way related to violence (but even harassing is not necessarily violent, so it may be 1). Like I said, the only case law that exists relates to pornographic material as it is the most unpopular. That wording was ripped from other anti-obscenity laws that have had a hard time in court but have not yet been entirely struck down.