Hypocrisy at its best.
I am not talking about morale/whatever standards the court and actually the entire US justice institutions acts according to.
BUT ? remember the Yahoo Nazi memorabilia case where France asked be taken off and US court said that it?s a US site and is served over the net and it?s a freedom of speech and all?
Well ? back then US word was to protect freedom of speech. Now that it comes to porn, freedom of speech seems like a ?good? enough to sacrifice.
Well ? what do you think is worst and more moral- Porn or Hate/Anti-Semitism? While most of us here on GFY agree (all but some self-promoting hate energized people) US court seems to be unsure of the answer.
I?ll say it again? fucken hypocrisy.
Now they come and say that it?s up to the site owner to control his/her site exposure?
Just one article ? I guess you?ve seen a lot of those?
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0...2504-2,00.html
Quote:
Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote the plurality opinion and saw no problems with the idea: "If a publisher chooses to send its material into a particular community, this Court's jurisprudence teaches that it is the publisher's responsibility to abide by that community's standards. The publisher's burden does not change simply because it decides to distribute its material to every community in the nation."
In fact, said Thomas, "If a publisher wishes for its material to be judged only by the standards of particular communities, then it need only take the simple step of utilizing a medium that enables it to target the release of its material into those communities."
|
Stupid fuck. It seems that this Clarence Thomas ?dude? forgets that there is some stuff around the borders of US called ?the rest of the world?
Next thing the US Supreme Court will approve is hand rectal inspection of passengers in airports due to 9/11 events.
