1st Amendment & the Net (Score 2)

Katz's article, while touching on a lot of valid issues, ultimately falls into a type of geek-chauvinism that afflicts the thinking of a lot of net-savvy types. The First Amendment and its relation to pornography has a history of robust case law that stretches back at least 50 years. The issues Katz raises, such as the line between socially valuable information relating to sexuality versus pornography, or the rights of children to access sexual information at school, have been hashed out pretty thoroughly in the Supreme Court and lower courts. Absolutely *nothing* about the Internet impacts the line the Supreme Court has drawn separating protected speech under the 1st Amendment vs. unprotected speech. Of course the Internet presents new problems for the law and law enforcement. The Internet treats censorship as a routing problem, right? But the core legal issue -- what is protected and what is off-limits -- is not affected by the Internet. Too often, net-savvy (or net-centric?) types are quick to cry: "the Internet has changed everything, our old laws no longer apply!" On a topic so heavily debated by lawyers, politicians, and professors of all kinds for so many decades, it is geek-chauvinism to think that what's come before should be junked, and that only people with an intimate understanding of technology should write the new rules. Sorry, Katz -- a whole lot of smart people have spent a lot of time thinking about the First Amendment and porn. The fact that the dirty pictures are now transmitted by IP packet rather than brown paper bag doesn't alter the fundamental issue.