Saferdating net

The court ruled that AOL is not liable, stating, "The simple fact of notice surely cannot transform one from an original publisher to a distributor in the eyes of the law.

To the contrary, once a computer service provider receives notice of a potentially defamatory posting, it is thrust into the role of a traditional publisher.

Fortunately, in the UK, there are laws that protect against this.

saferdating net-87saferdating net-13saferdating net-44

"This act attempted to impose criminal sanctions on any person who knowingly 1) makes, creates, or solicits, and 2) initiates the transmission of any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent, with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass another person". Supreme Court suggested that the Constitution does not protect "obscenity" and that the state and federal government can declare obscenity illegal if it meets the following three criteria: "1. Supreme Court established a three-part obscenity test to protect minors and define what is illegal for distribution to minors: "1. However, it is currently legal to distribute, sell, or display indecent material over the Internet, as long as it is non-obscene.

[1] In 1997, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld a lower court's ruling that declared a portion of the CDA unconstitutional because it violated the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment. The average person, applying contemporary community standards finds the material as a whole is directed toward an unhealthy, abnormal, obsessive, morbid or shameful interest in sex; and 2. The average person applying contemporary community standards would find that it has a predominate tendency to appeal to the unhealthy or shameful interest of minors in sex. The average person applying contemporary standards would find it patently offensive to adults to make this sexually explicit material available for minors. It lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors." Further, there are indecency laws that protect children from the harmful effects of pornography. On October 21, 1998, President Clinton signed The Child Online Protection Act (COPA).

[10] Current statutory rape laws prohibit anyone who is of and or over the age of consent to have sex with someone who is under the age of consent.

The age of consent varies from state to state and across nations. [11] It does not matter if the sex is consensual because the younger person is too young to give legal consent.

The Supreme Court agreed by refusing to review the decision.

[7] Laith Alsarraf, owner of Adult Check, a company that verifies a person's age through means such as credit card numbers and other identification before allowing access to pornographic web sites, claims that "companies are becoming more aware of their responsibility to keep adult material away from children." And he has the numbers to prove it.

Adult Check services 46,000 sites, most of which display pornography.

He stated that "3 million people pay .95 a year for the service, with about half the money going to Web site owners." [8] However, in other recent cases such as Doe v America Online, the law has failed to protect minors.

It also does not matter if the younger person lied about his or her age; the older person has the responsibility of making sure their actions are legal.

Tags: , ,