Are Contemporary Community Standards No Longer Contemporary Note 49 Cleveland State Law Review 2001

About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

table,div,span,font,p{display:none}Please click here if you are not redirected within a few seconds.

49 Clev. St. L. Rev. 105 (2001)
Are Contemporary Community Standards No Longer Contemporary

handle is hein.journals/clevslr49 and id is 115 raw text is: ARE CONTEMPORARY COMMUNITY STANDARDS NO
LONGER CONTEMPORARY?
I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................... 105
II. OBSCENITY LAW AND ITS HISTORICAL BACKGROUND ....... 107
III. MODERN TEST FOR OBSCENITY .......................................... 109
A. Community: What is it? ............................................. 112
IV. INTERNET AND FREE SPEECH .............................................. 117
A. Bulletin Boards Should be Distinguished from
the World Wide Web .................................................. 118
B. Speech Regulation on the Internet ............................. 119
1. Federal Attempts to Regulate the Internet .......... 119
2. Challenge to COPA ............................................ 122
3. State Internet Law s ............................................. 123
V. SHOULD THERE BE A NEW STANDARD OR NO STANDARD
AT ALL?...........................................124
A. Community Standards Versus Other Standards ........ 125
1. N ational Standard ............................................... 125
2. Virtual Community Standards ............................ 125
3. Is Obscenity Even a Problem? ............................ 128
4. Children and Sexually Explicit Content of
the W eb ............................................................... 129
5. Self-regulation of Internet Content is a
Constitutional Way to Achieve Legitimate
Governmental Purposes ...................................... 129
V I. C ONCLUSION ...................................................................... 132
I. INTRODUCTION
To preserve the freedom of the human mind and freedom of the press,
every spirit should be ready to devote itself to martyrdom; for as long as
we may think as we will, and speak as we think, the condition of man will
proceed in improvement.'
On June 22, 2000, the Third Circuit upheld the preliminary injunction2 ruling that
the Child Online Protection Act (C.O.P.A.), 42 U.S.C. § 231, designed to protect
iLetter from Thomas Jefferson to William Green Mumford (June 18, 1799), The Letters of
Thomas Jefferson: 1793-1826, at http://educ.let.zng.nV-usa/P/tj3/writingsbzf/jefl 127.htm
(last visited Sept. 16, 2000).
2ACLU v. Reno, 217 F.3d 162 (3d Cir. 2000).