Fed appellate judge remarks re anonymity, free speech on the net

[jim bell]

At 05:40 PM 9/12/96 -0700, Greg Broiles wrote:
>
>The Daily Journal, a LA/SF legal newspaper had an article today (9/12) about
>a lunchtime address given by Ninth Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski last Monday
>at an Internet Law Symposium in Seattle.
>
>The article quotes Kozinski as saying "I have a severe problem with
>anonymous E-mailers . . . You don't have a right to walk up to somebody's
>door and knock with a bag over your head." The article says Kozinski likened
>anonymous E-mail to menacing someone.

I wish somebody would go up to these guys and point out that since the 
Internet is, more or less, a huge, worldwide, VOLUNTARY association of 
people, _we_ don't think these judges have any sort of "right" to regulate 
its content.  Furthermore, it isn't clear that the proper regulators of the 
Internet shouldn't be an entirely different set of people selected by 
Internet users, RATHER than the same old government system that's managed to 
screw up the rest of the world so far.

And if you're looking for "menacing," I'd say that describes the 
government's behavior towards the Internet over the last year or two.


>Kozinski also suggested that computer-generated or morphed images of
>children involved in sexual acts may not be protected under the Constitution
>because of ongoing trauma to the child,

Which child?  Does he understand what "computer-generated" means?

>while computer-generated or morphed images of adults would be protected. 

What about the "ongoing trauma" to the adults?  I smell hypocrisy.

>The article says that Kozinski was skeptical that he or other federal judges
>necessarily agreed with the 3rd Circuit's ruling in _ACLU v. Reno_ (finding
>the CDA unconstitutional). 
>
>Kozinski is considered relatively conservative and relatively libertarian,
>as 9th Circuit judges go. 

Which means that he'll last just a little longer "when the cyber-revolution 
comes."


Jim Bell
jimbell at pacifier.com