• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

It is illegal to give out abortion information over the internet?

techs

techs

Lifer
http://www.news.com/8301-13578...84-38.html?tag=cd.blog

Politician who banned abortion-related Web sites dies

Henry Hyde, the former Illinois congressman who led attempts to impeach President Bill Clinton and was a longtime foe of abortion, died on Thursday. He was 83.

The Associated Press has already published an extensive obituary of Hyde, a Republican who retired from Congress at the end of the last session. What the AP doesn't mention is Hyde's authorship of a federal law--still on the books today--making it a felony to distribute information over the Internet that relates to obtaining an abortion.

Hyde's successful amendment to an unrelated telecommunications bill in 1996 extended the Comstock Law to "interactive computer services." The amended language is here:


Whoever...knowingly uses any...interactive computer service...for carriage...any drug, medicine, article, or thing designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral use; or any written or printed card, letter, circular, book, pamphlet, advertisement, or notice of any kind giving information, directly or indirectly, where, how, or of whom, or by what means any of such mentioned articles, matters, or things may be obtained or made...shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both, for the first such offense and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both, for each such offense thereafter.

I've highlighted the most relevant portions of the Hyde Abortion Web Ban in bold. Another section of that law, for which Hyde was not responsible, bans the transmission of any "matter of indecent character" (goodbye, Goatse) and any "filthy phonograph recording, electrical transcription, or other article or thing capable of producing sound" (so much for a large percentage of rap MP3s and MySpace profiles of bands).


Wow. Obviously these laws would be declared unconstitutional. At least or until another Bush type appointee makes it to the Supreme Court.
 
Henry Hyde was a douchebag, but I'm 0 starring you anyway for yet another techs troll thread designed solely to blame Bush for the sand in your vagina.
 
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
So..... is it illegal to give, over the internet, directions to a clinic?
Click to expand...

Worse yet, it's even illegal to protest abortion in such a way that shows how it is done or where.


Clearly a law that would not make it past a Supreme Court challenge
 
You left out that Clinton had Reno announce they would not enforce the law as it was violative of the first amendment, as well as attach a signing statement to the communications bill this ridiculous provision was attached to. This is another one of Declan McCullagh's (cnet.com) alarmist rants.
 
The lefties are just pissed because Hyde was the guy who delivered the Clinton Impeachment Articles to the Senate.

Hyde was a fine man and may he rest in peace.
 
Rest of article.

So were the ACLU and its ideological pro-choice allies slacking? Not exactly. What happened is that after the Hyde Abortion Web Ban got glued onto the Telecommunications Act, the Clinton administration decided not to enforce it on grounds that it violated the free-speech rights protected by the First Amendment. Instead of vetoing the measure, which would have been a cleaner solution, President Clinton said in a signing statement that the Hyde Abortion Web Ban was "unconstitutional."

Attorney General Janet Reno then wrote in a letter to Vice President Al Gore: "This is to inform you that the Department of Justice will not defend the constitutionality of the abortion-related speech provision of (the law) in those cases, in light of the Department's longstanding policy to decline to enforce the abortion-related speech prohibitions (in the related statutes) because they are unconstitutional under the First Amendment." The Bush Justice Department has not prosecuted anyone under it either.
Click to expand...

 
Originally posted by: Pabster
The lefties are just pissed because Hyde was the guy who delivered the Clinton Impeachment Articles to the Senate.

Hyde was a fine man and may he rest in peace.
Click to expand...

Hyde had no intention of impeaching Clinton.
Read Bob Woodwards book.
 
Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1
Originally posted by: daveymark
May he rest in peace
Click to expand...

And may those who think like him start resting in peace in the next few days too.
Click to expand...

Yeah, as if P&N didn?t degenerate low enough on its own without prayers for death.

Yet I don?t think a certain liberal (who shall remain nameless) will come in here and tell you you?re equal to a terrorist, or that you?re a bed wetter with bogymen Republicans under it. Mostly because he?d have to be there right along side you, instead of being on some illusionary moral high ground condemning your self hate.

No, that task is left to me. Yet what do I care? The most obvious reply is a mirror, and unlike you I won?t hide it in subtleties.

May you die in the next few days too.
 
Originally posted by: sirjonk
You left out that Clinton had Reno announce they would not enforce the law as it was violative of the first amendment, as well as attach a signing statement to the communications bill this ridiculous provision was attached to. This is another one of Declan McCullagh's (cnet.com) alarmist rants.
Click to expand...
Wait a second? you mean Congress passed a law and the President decided he was going to ignore the law and did so by issuing a ?signing statement? to that effect???

But I thought signing statements were bad and attempts by the President to take over as a dictator. How come no one objected to Bill Clinton and this signing statement? Seems pretty dishonest and hypocritical to object to Bush and his signing statements, but ignore the fact that Clinton did much of the same thing.

If the law was unconstitutional then why not take it to the courts and let them decided what is right and wrong?
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: sirjonk
You left out that Clinton had Reno announce they would not enforce the law as it was violative of the first amendment, as well as attach a signing statement to the communications bill this ridiculous provision was attached to. This is another one of Declan McCullagh's (cnet.com) alarmist rants.
Click to expand...
Wait a second? you mean Congress passed a law and the President decided he was going to ignore the law and did so by issuing a ?signing statement? to that effect???

But I thought signing statements were bad and attempts by the President to take over as a dictator. How come no one objected to Bill Clinton and this signing statement? Seems pretty dishonest and hypocritical to object to Bush and his signing statements, but ignore the fact that Clinton did much of the same thing.

If the law was unconstitutional then why not take it to the courts and let them decided what is right and wrong?
Click to expand...


You miss the point COMPLETLY. Why didn't the Republicans go to court and decide if it was constitutional or not? Because the Repubs WANTED a clearly unconstitutional law to be in effect until the courts overturned it.
 
Originally posted by: Corn
Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1
Originally posted by: daveymark
May he rest in peace
Click to expand...

And may those who think like him start resting in peace in the next few days too.
Click to expand...

Ah, the smiling face of liberal tolerance. Fuck you.
Click to expand...
Hey, Tom! Don't be shy, now. Tell us how you really feel. 😛

 
Originally posted by: senseamp
I hope that two faced hypocrite rots in hell. 😀
Click to expand...

Awwwww, another compassionate and tolerant lefty makes his voice heard. Isn't he cute acting all grown up.......just like a 13 year old!

Disturbing behavior by a few lefties to be sure, advertising themselves as "disturbed psychopath" for all to see. Where's Moonie to remind these sick idiots that they really hate themselves?

 
Originally posted by: Corn
Originally posted by: senseamp
I hope that two faced hypocrite rots in hell. 😀
Click to expand...

Awwwww, another compassionate and tolerant lefty makes his voice heard. Isn't he cute acting all grown up.......just like a 13 year old!

Disturbing behavior by a few lefties to be sure, advertising themselves as "disturbed psychopath" for all to see. Where's Moonie to remind these sick idiots that they really hate themselves?
Click to expand...
Cool, I knew I wasn't a Liberal as I'm not compassionate in the least. Does that make be a Conservative?:shocked:

 
Originally posted by: Citrix
next mothers day make sure make sure you give your mom a hug and thank her for being pro life.
Click to expand...

Hell no, that'd be insulting. And all aborted children agree with their mother's decision to abort them. You ever hear of one who objected?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top