Sex chat rooms nc

10 Apr

These websites can provide perhaps the most powerful mechanisms available to a private citizen to make his or her voice heard. Because the North Carolina legislature believed — based mostly upon rumor, hearsay and prejudice, but put that aside for now — that including lawful and First Amendment-protected communicative activity (political speech, religious speech, commercial speech, etc.), a great deal of which, to put it mildly, takes place on social-networking sites these days.They allow a person with an Internet connection to “become a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox.” … That is a really odious principle on which to base a law.There are ads posted by wife swappers of all races and ages.This includes cities all over America, Europe and Australia.

But the North Carolina Supreme Court had so held, in a decision I described at the time as preposterous.It is cyberspace—the “vast democratic forums of the Internet” in general, To the extent this reflects the court’s willingness to recognize strong First Amendment protection for the right to access the Internet, it could call other regulations involving Internet access restrictions into question.For example, my colleagues Annemarie Bridy and Harold Feld have each suggested that provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act requiring Internet service providers to terminate Internet access for “repeat [copyright] infringers” could face renewed scrutiny after On the other hand, one man’s ringing words are another’s — specifically, Alito’s — “loose rhetoric” and “undisciplined dicta.” The concurring justices (Alito, Roberts, Thomas) agreed with the majority that the NC statute “sweeps far too broadly to satisfy the demands of the Free Speech Clause,” and they had no particular problem with the way the majority characterized and undertook the First Amendment analysis in the case.Now that the Supreme Court has unanimously overturned its decision, I trust that the members of the North Carolina court (except for Justices Robin E.Hudson and Cheri Beasley, who dissented from the original ruling) are suitably chastened and embarrassed.** ** And just to add to their embarrassment (not that I take any particular pleasure in calling out judges, but the North Carolina court’s decision here was really a disgrace, and deserves all the opprobrium we can heap on it): The Supreme Court didn’t even condescend to mention the ridiculous theory that the North Carolina court had propounded to support its holding that the statute was constitutional: that the statutory prohibition on access to “social networking websites” was a regulation of I don’t think the majority or concurring opinions break any particular new ground, doctrinally.