url
stringlengths
79
87
text
stringlengths
2
4.93k
language
stringclasses
30 values
start
float64
0
18.6k
end
float64
3
18.6k
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2051&end=2055
a digital image, computer image, computer-generated image
english
2,051.08
2,054.1
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2054&end=2058
that is or is indistinguishable from
english
2,054.1
2,057.74
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2062&end=2066
get at Justice Thomas' hint in his concurrence
english
2,062.06
2,065.4
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2065&end=2071
that if the technology gets better, the statute could be upheld.
english
2,065.4
2,070.56
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2070&end=2076
And the vigil depiction is created, adapted, so on, to appear that an identifiable minor
english
2,070.56
2,075.96
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2075&end=2083
or, sorry, or the depiction is created so that it appears to be an identifiable minor.
english
2,075.96
2,082.52
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2082&end=2088
And this is really getting at this, again, this idea of morphing that there is a minor
english
2,082.52
2,087.12
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2087&end=2094
and the picture is then kind of changed to make it sexually explicit.
english
2,087.12
2,093.48
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2093&end=2104
The statute defines identifiable minor and you can kind of look at the definition there.
english
2,093.48
2,103.48
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2103&end=2108
One of the kind of key pieces in this definition of identifiable
english
2,103.48
2,107.92
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2107&end=2114
minor, and we'll see this again next week when we talk about New Jersey law on virtual child
english
2,107.92
2,113.76
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2113&end=2120
pornography, there is a New Jersey Supreme Court case on this under the New Jersey statute. And,
english
2,113.76
2,119.76
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2119&end=2126
you know, one of the questions is, well, what would a prosecutor have to prove to, you know, show
english
2,119.76
2,125.84
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2125&end=2134
that it's an identifiable minor? And so here the statute says it's recognizable as an actual
english
2,125.84
2,133.6
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2133&end=2139
person, but you don't have to show who the actual minor was. You know, so for example,
english
2,133.6
2,138.8
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2138&end=2148
what if somebody just grabs a random image of a child off of Google Images, and, you know, manipulates that to
english
2,138.8
2,147.44
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2147&end=2154
make it appear sexually explicit, and then kind of trades it or sells it as child pornography,
english
2,147.44
2,153.58
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2153&end=2161
and there's no way to really trace who the original image was of, it still would satisfy
english
2,153.58
2,160.46
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2161&end=2172
So, indistinguishable, notice that definition as well because that's an important definition. And I think you can see by reading it, it's the, you know, Congress
english
2,161.46
2,171.04
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2171&end=2176
is sort of struggling with a way to kind of define this. Indistinguishable means virtually
english
2,171.04
2,175.08
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2175&end=2183
indistinguishable. An ordinary person would conclude that it's an actual minor and it's
english
2,175.08
2,182.5
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2189&end=2196
Those are going to raise this part of the statute is still in force and these these modifications are still in force
english
2,189.24
2,195.32
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2197&end=2203
There are issues about how they get applied what that means and we'll look a little bit more at that
english
2,197.36
2,202.36
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2217&end=2221
big deal in the late 1990s. It was another
english
2,217.12
2,220.88
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2221&end=2229
kind of early effort by Congress to deal with a range of issues around pornography,
english
2,221.48
2,228.84
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2228&end=2233
obscenity, and the like on the Internet.
english
2,228.84
2,232.4
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2232&end=2237
And it was kind of within the Internet law community at the time, another one of these
english
2,232.4
2,236.18
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2237&end=2249
I mean, the sort of the copy left, the cyber exceptionalist elements of internet law at the time were really outraged
english
2,237.18
2,248.76
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2248&end=2256
by this statute and, you know, really felt like it was a significant impingement on free
english
2,248.76
2,255.18
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2255&end=2260
speech and, of course, it gets challenged in various ways, including this challenge
english
2,255.18
2,259.86
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2259&end=2263
by the ACLU, which gets up to the Supreme Court.
english
2,259.86
2,262.86
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2265&end=2273
the parts that that we're looking at tonight, it's about the ability of young
english
2,265.08
2,272.84
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2272&end=2277
people, of children, to access pornography and other types of material
english
2,272.84
2,276.96
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2276&end=2283
of that sort online. Now notice this is not a child pornography statute. It is a
english
2,276.96
2,282.72
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2282&end=2287
statute that involves any kind of obscene material that a minor
english
2,282.72
2,286.56
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2293&end=2300
Obscene or indecent material if the transmitter knew that the recipient was under 18
english
2,293
2,299.88
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2301&end=2312
Same thing about sending or displaying that kind of material. It had some defenses built in, so you know if you took some good-faith actions to restrict
english
2,301.4
2,311.58
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2311&end=2318
access by minors and it created a safe harbor by saying if you require credit
english
2,311.58
2,317.14
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2317&end=2324
card verification or an adult ID number or code to verify that the user is an
english
2,317.14
2,323.94
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2323&end=2331
adult, then that would that could be a safe harbor. So you can see what this statute is trying to do is trying to say to any
english
2,323.94
2,330.12
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2334&end=2339
if there's any chance that the material is going to be obscene and is going to be
english
2,334.88
2,338.52
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2339&end=2345
Able to be accessed by a child which really you can't know for sure who's going to access your stuff
english
2,339.32
2,344.6
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2346&end=2350
on the internet, then you would have to have some kind of means of verification.
english
2,346.08
2,349.8
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2349&end=2356
It was really trying to force some kind of means of verification.
english
2,349.8
2,355.32
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2355&end=2362
And so here again the court finds this part of this statute unconstitutional.
english
2,355.32
2,361.16
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2361&end=2371
And now you have a majority opinion by Justice Stevens. As I mentioned, Stevens is a strong defender of the First Amendment values. And Stevens says this is
english
2,361.16
2,370.96
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2371&end=2377
a blanket restriction on certain kinds of speech. It's not, in his opinion, just a time,
english
2,371.68
2,376.4
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2376&end=2387
place, or manner restriction. Notice this quote. And this is a a place where US Supreme Court law is perhaps at the
english
2,376.4
2,387
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2387&end=2396
height of what we called cyber exceptionalism in our module on our first module on internet
english
2,387
2,395.06
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2397&end=2404
So notice this quote, never before after has the vast have the vast democratic fora of
english
2,397.02
2,403.28
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2403&end=2407
the internet been subject to this kind of government
english
2,403.28
2,406.64
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2406&end=2412
supervision or regulation of the same sort that attends the broadcast industry. And what he's
english
2,406.64
2,411.76
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2411&end=2421
referring to there are the various kind of decency rules, censorship rules in public television and
english
2,411.76
2,420.16
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2421&end=2428
public broadcasting. Stephen says the internet is not as invasive
english
2,421.04
2,427.32
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2429&end=2433
Radio or television, you turn it on and it's on.
english
2,429.44
2,432.8
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2435&end=2440
And if one of the prohibited bad words comes over the air,
english
2,435.44
2,439.84
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2447&end=2455
broadcast television show, the kids will see it. He says not so with the internet. Now I think,
english
2,447.68
2,454.96
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2454&end=2462
you know, this is a piece of this case that is perhaps a little bit frozen in amber from 1997.
english
2,454.96
2,461.52
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2461&end=2466
I'm not sure that anyone would really agree that the internet is not as
english
2,461.52
2,465.8
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2465&end=2472
invasive as radio or television today because we all have the internet in the
english
2,465.8
2,471.92
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2471&end=2476
pock- in our pockets in our phones including our kids and you might say
english
2,471.92
2,475.8
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2475&end=2482
well don't give your kid a phone you know if you if you have a young teenage
english
2,475.8
2,481.2
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2481&end=2487
preteen kid you know they're gonna have a phone and it's
english
2,481.2
2,486.04
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2486&end=2490
partly because you're gonna feel safer if they're out somewhere and they have a
english
2,486.04
2,489.56
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2489&end=2493
phone and so on. But we all know we all have the Internet, it's totally
english
2,489.56
2,492.8
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2492&end=2499
accessible, but this is 1997, you know, and it was a little bit of a different world.
english
2,492.8
2,498.76
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2498&end=2508
All right, so Stevens also says that the statute is not specific enough, the terms aren't well-defined,
english
2,498.76
2,507.1
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2507&end=2514
it doesn't really follow the Miller test for what might or might not be obscene.
english
2,507.1
2,513.54
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2513&end=2521
He suggests that the safe harbors and the good faith defenses are unfeasible, they're
english
2,513.54
2,520.96
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2520&end=2526
too expensive, the technology to implement them doesn't really exist
english
2,520.96
2,525.44
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2526&end=2532
in any sort of meaningful way. You know, that piece of this case is kind of interesting. To
english
2,526.16
2,531.6
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2531&end=2538
some extent that's probably still true. You know, if somebody wants to get around a verification
english
2,531.6
2,537.12
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2537&end=2541
technology, they probably can get around it. To some extent it's not true. I mean, people have
english
2,537.12
2,540.32
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2540&end=2548
talked about biometrics, for example, having some kind of requirement for a fingerprint
english
2,540.32
2,547.64
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2547&end=2552
reader or something along those lines for certain kind of sites.
english
2,547.64
2,551.08
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2551&end=2559
It certainly is technologically feasible, but it involves expense and transaction costs,
english
2,551.08
2,558.08
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2558&end=2563
you know, the time and effort to do it.
english
2,558.08
2,562.28
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2562&end=2567
And you know, note again this kind of strong piece of cyber exceptionalism.
english
2,562.28
2,566.72
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2566&end=2574
Stephen says the CDA threatens to torch—great word from Justice Stevens—to torch a large segment
english
2,566.72
2,573.04
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2574&end=2582
of the internet community. And ultimately, Stephen says this statue could only be upheld to the
english
2,574.08
2,581.44
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2581&end=2587
extent it's really targeted toward the kind of obscene speech that you
english
2,581.44
2,586.64
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2586&end=2591
could regulate under the Miller test.
english
2,586.64
2,590.56
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2590&end=2595
So again here we have a robust debate among members of the court with some concurrences
english
2,590.56
2,594.62
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2596&end=2601
So we have a concurrence and partial concurrence, partial dissent from Justice O'Connor.
english
2,596.44
2,600.68
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2600&end=2607
Notice you've got Stevens, kind of the very strong First Amendment view.
english
2,600.68
2,606.36
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2606&end=2613
You have O'Connor, as she often does in these cases and as well as in other kinds of cases,
english
2,606.36
2,612.44
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2612&end=2618
kind of occupying this middle, trying to find some kind of middle space.
english
2,612.44
2,617.68
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2617&end=2627
And O'Connor is looking at this as a kind of zoning regulation. So O'Connor says you can have zoning regulations that deal with
english
2,617.68
2,626.8
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2628&end=2635
obscene material or a material that is kind of questionable. So, you know, even if it might not
english
2,628.32
2,634.56
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2634&end=2641
be possible in a particular area to completely ban all pornographic literature or pornographic movies
english
2,634.56
2,640.72
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2642&end=2648
under the Miller test, you could zone and say you can only buy those
english
2,642
2,647.82
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2647&end=2654
things in the red-light district. And, you know, those kind of zoning regulations
english
2,647.82
2,653.26
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2653&end=2660
generally the court had upheld unless they're really just kind of
english
2,653.26
2,659.86
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2659&end=2664
subterfuge for banning the material, but generally the zoning regulations are
english
2,659.86
2,663.64
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2663&end=2668
upheld. But notice again a really strong element of cyber
english
2,663.64
2,667.34
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2668&end=2672
exceptionalism in this case here from Justice O'Connor. O'Connor says
english
2,668.04
2,671.74
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2672&end=2677
cyberspace, the electronic world, is fundamentally different. Fundamentally different.
english
2,672.44
2,677
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2677&end=2682
Cyberspace allows speakers and listeners to mask their identity.
english
2,677.94
2,681.26
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2684&end=2692
mask their identity. And so what she's saying here is, you know, you really can't do this kind of zoning in cyberspace. It's just not really possible to say, you
english
2,684.68
2,691.36
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2691&end=2695
know, 42nd Street is the red light district. Of course now it's the Disney
english
2,691.36
2,694.48