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=2694&end=2699
district, but you know, years past. 42nd Street is the red light district and this
english
2,694.48
2,699
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2699&end=2708
is the family district. She says you can't do that online. But note this, she does say cyberspace is malleable.
english
2,699
2,707.58
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2707&end=2714
It could be feasible in the future to create adult-only zones if the technology develops
english
2,707.58
2,713.54
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2714&end=2718
Again, this case, 1997.
english
2,714.54
2,717.88
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2717&end=2724
So she says with existing technology, the Communications Decency Act should have been
english
2,717.88
2,723.6
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2725&end=2730
circumstance where the party initiating the communication knows that all the recipients
english
2,725.28
2,729.72
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2732&end=2738
I mean, it might be in a particular chat room or a particular email or something along those
english
2,732.4
2,737.96
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2737&end=2742
lines, but in that narrow case.
english
2,737.96
2,741.64
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2741&end=2748
But notice that O'Connor does leave open the possibility that if technology makes that kind of zoning possible,
english
2,741.64
2,747.56
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2752&end=2761
So after the court strikes down the CDA, Congress tries again with a statute called the Child Online Protection Act or COPA.
english
2,752.68
2,760.36
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2760&end=2773
And COPA has a very long history through the courts, and that's why I call it the Copa saga. So Copa statute says said that whoever knowingly and with
english
2,760.76
2,772.12
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2775&end=2779
commerce or by means of the World Wide Web, a specific reference here to the
english
2,775
2,778.4
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2778&end=2783
web, makes any communication for commercial purposes that is available to
english
2,778.4
2,782.96
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2782&end=2787
any miner and that includes material harmful to minors
english
2,782.96
2,786.08
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2788&end=2797
Defines a minor as a person under 17 years of age and defines material harmful to minors to track the Miller obscenity test
english
2,788.84
2,796.88
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2797&end=2804
Now the district court issues a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the statute
english
2,797.76
2,803.46
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2804&end=2810
It goes up to the Court of Appeals and then goes up to the Supreme Court.
english
2,804.04
2,809.08
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2809&end=2817
So the posture is that there's a preliminary injunction finding the statute unconstitutional
english
2,809.08
2,816.6
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2818&end=2824
So the majority opinion authored by Justice Thomas, the majority as to the result, you'll
english
2,818.66
2,823.24
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2825&end=2830
opinions and there is no kind of majority as to the reasoning, but there is a majority
english
2,825.56
2,829.48
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2829&end=2836
to the result. The majority as to the result is to say, well, kind of the facial challenge
english
2,829.48
2,835.24
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2835&end=2846
saying that this reliance on community standards renders the statute substantially overbroad, it's not specific enough, it's not detailed
english
2,835.24
2,845.88
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2845&end=2854
enough, the statute is not facially overbroad, it can refer to the community standards under
english
2,845.88
2,853.96
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2856&end=2863
But as you'll see, what ends up happening is that the case is remanded for further proceedings
english
2,856.36
2,862.56
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2862&end=2869
and then it comes back to the Supreme Court again. Before we get there let's talk about some of the other opinions
english
2,862.56
2,868.28
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2868&end=2875
about the reasoning. So Thomas's reasoning is joined by Scalia, Rehnquist,
english
2,868.28
2,874.88
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2874&end=2883
and O'Connor and you know the the issue here is whether the community standard
english
2,874.88
2,882.04
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2882&end=2887
has to be a local standard. So this statute is trying to
english
2,882.04
2,886.34
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2886&end=2895
establish a national standard for what kind of material could be available to
english
2,886.34
2,894.14
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2894&end=2901
children and the facial challenge was to say Miller requires a local
english
2,894.14
2,900.06
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2900&end=2906
standard. And Thomas's reasoning here joined by by Scalia, Rehnquist, O'Connor says, no, it
english
2,900.06
2,905.28
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2905&end=2913
doesn't have to be a local standard. Miller permits a local standard, but doesn't require
english
2,905.28
2,912.36
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2912&end=2922
a local standard. The definition in COPPA of the kind of material that is defined as
english
2,912.36
2,921.36
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2921&end=2928
prohibited, is material that appeals to the prurient interest, it has no literary
english
2,921.36
2,927.84
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2927&end=2935
or scientific value, and therefore the definitions in the statute really limit the kind of material
english
2,927.84
2,934.2
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2934&end=2938
that could be covered.
english
2,934.2
2,937.56
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2937&end=2945
And notice this, another sort of bit of cyber-exceptionalism creeping in here.
english
2,937.56
2,944.64
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2945&end=2951
hold this unconstitutional, what we would say is that there can be no federal obscenity
english
2,945.58
2,950.96
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2950&end=2956
law as applied to the web, because the web is not local.
english
2,950.96
2,955.98
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2955&end=2960
The web transcends localities.
english
2,955.98
2,959.7
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2959&end=2967
And if you're going to have to say that kind of the most permissive locality that's available on the
english
2,959.7
2,966.96
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2966&end=2974
web is the one that must govern, then effectively you're saying there can't be any regulation
english
2,966.96
2,973.88
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2976&end=2982
And Thomas says, you know, if a publisher chooses, in sort of the brick and mortar world,
english
2,976.56
2,981.48
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2981&end=2988
if a publisher chooses to send material to a particular community, then that community's standards are going to, you know, the publisher
english
2,981.48
2,987.92
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2987&end=2994
is going to have to abide by that community's standards for the purpose of obscenity law.
english
2,987.92
2,993.08
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2993&end=2999
And the fact is, if you're distributing your material to every community in the nation,
english
2,993.08
2,998.24
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=2998&end=3004
then you have to presume that you're sending it to very restrictive communities as well
english
2,998.24
3,003.76
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=3003&end=3008
as very permissive communities.
english
3,003.76
3,007.34
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=3007&end=3015
And so ultimately the result here is to vacate the holding that the statute is invalid and
english
3,007.34
3,014.22
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=3014&end=3024
to send it back to the Court of Appeals actually for further proceedings to develop how this
english
3,014.22
3,023.2
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=3023&end=3027
standard would actually apply to the statute at issue.
english
3,023.2
3,027
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=3027&end=3032
Justice O'Connor again concurs.
english
3,027
3,032
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=3032&end=3039
O'Connor says in fact that a national community standard is necessary for Internet obscenity.
english
3,032
3,039
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=3039&end=3048
Notice again this thread in O'Connor's jurisprudence of the Internet at this period in time of
english
3,039
3,047.2
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=3047&end=3053
pretty significant cyber exceptionalism.
english
3,047.2
3,052.16
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=3052&end=3057
Further O'Connor says this notion that there are these local communities like what's permissible
english
3,052.16
3,056.86
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=3056&end=3069
in Maine might be less than what's permissible in Las Vegas or New York is kind of collapsing and part of the reason it's collapsing is exactly because of the
english
3,056.86
3,069
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=3069&end=3074
Internet. Justice Kennedy writes a concurrence joined by Souter and
english
3,069
3,073.98
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=3073&end=3086
Ginsburg. Kennedy ultimately agrees with a decision to remand but Kennedy says that the web
english
3,073.98
3,085.36
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=3087&end=3095
complicates all this You know, how do you judge something as a whole judge the work as a whole as the Miller test requires?
english
3,087.28
3,094.64
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=3094&end=3103
When the work is in the context of the web and effect Kennedy's again sounding a note of cyber exceptionalism
english
3,094.8
3,102.16
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=3102&end=3108
What is the work? Is it that individual file?
english
3,102.44
3,107.12
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=3117&end=3123
Do you effectively have to judge the work as a whole?
english
3,117.08
3,122.08
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=3125&end=3130
And Justice Kennedy says, really, what's going on here
english
3,125.92
3,129.12
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=3130&end=3136
We need to know more about who the material that's
english
3,130.64
3,135.32
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=3135&end=3140
at issue in a particular case is trying to reach
english
3,135.32
3,139.44
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=3139&end=3144
and who it's actually reaching and how
english
3,139.44
3,143.16
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=3143&end=3148
that applies to the interconnected context of the Internet as a whole.
english
3,143.16
3,148
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=3148&end=3169
Justice Stevens dissents. So Stevens says, really kind of takes O'Con community standards on the Internet. And he, you
english
3,148
3,168.04
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=3168&end=3172
know, uses this nice little zinger here, if a prurient appeal is offensive and
english
3,168.04
3,171.68
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=3171&end=3177
impure in village, it may be a crime to post it on the web. And he is saying that
english
3,171.68
3,177
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=3177&end=3184
there is simply no way to segregate speech on the Internet. The Internet is
english
3,177
3,183.8
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=3186&end=3193
and there simply is no way to have separate areas or ways in which you can discern
english
3,186.96
3,192.64
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=3192&end=3199
that a child in some very conservative community might have access to the material.
english
3,192.64
3,198.8
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=3201&end=3209
And Stevens even goes a little further and says, you know, the the prurient interest aspect of the Miller test is
english
3,201.28
3,208.16
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=3218&end=3224
Appeals to the prurient interest of a minor. I think he has in mind here, you know, like a 13 year old boy or something
english
3,218.52
3,223.88
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=3228&end=3234
Stevens does say that that kind of really hardcore pornography really
english
3,228.04
3,234
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=3234&end=3243
shouldn't be on on the Internet, but we just effectively can't regulate this. And
english
3,234
3,242.68
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=3242&end=3248
you'll notice again here, flipping it on its head but a note
english
3,242.68
3,247.24
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=3247&end=3257
of cyber exceptionalism we in the real world we can find communities and places
english
3,247.24
3,256.32
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=3256&end=3263
where if we share a certain kind of interest in sexually explicit speech we
english
3,256.32
3,262.2
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=3262&end=3266
can do that and other people don't have to directly be affected by it.
english
3,262.2
3,265.44
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=3265&end=3271
If we don't want that, we can separate ourselves out from it, but we just can't do that in
english
3,265.44
3,270.82
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=3276&end=3281
Okay, so the case gets remanded.
english
3,276.08
3,281
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=3281&end=3288
The Court of Appeals looks at it again under the new articulation of this as confused as
english
3,281
3,287.64
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=3287&end=3293
it is that the Supreme Court gives them and perhaps not surprisingly the Court of Appeals
english
3,287.64
3,292.22
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=3292&end=3298
says yep we're going to affirm the District Court's injunction, we're going to say that
english
3,292.22
3,297.72
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=3297&end=3304
the statute is unconstitutional and then it comes back up to the Supreme Court, the Court
english
3,297.72
3,303.76
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=3303&end=3311
takes it once again, uncert. And so now Justice Kennedy writes the majority opinion. And
english
3,303.76
3,310.76
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=3310&end=3316
now Justice Kennedy is going to address this in a framework that's sort of
english
3,310.76
3,315.84
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=3315&end=3322
more consistent with traditional First Amendment jurisprudence, and
english
3,315.84
3,321.44
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=3321&end=3329
particularly First Amendment jurisprudence aimed at the content of speech.
english
3,321.44
3,328.2
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=3328&end=3335
And he asks whether this statute is the least restrictive means of advancing the purpose
english
3,328.2
3,334.88
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=3334&end=3339
of trying to protect minors from having access to this.
english
3,334.88
3,338.98
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=3339&end=3349
He says users can implement on their own filtering and blocking software if they want to.
english
3,339.98
3,348.08
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=3348&end=3354
And that kind of software, he says, can be relatively effective.
english
3,348.08
3,353.4
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=3353&end=3359
It can't be mandated by Congress, but it can be encouraged by Congress.
english
3,353.4
3,358.36
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=3358&end=3363
And really what he's saying is, you know, it's up to the family, it's up to the parent
english
3,358.36
3,362.16
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=3362&end=3366
to put software on the system that will filter this kind of
english
3,362.16
3,365.52
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z96wLHMN62g?modestbranding=1&loop=1&start=3366&end=3373
So under Kennedy's opinion, the district court's injunction is left in place.
english
3,366.76
3,372.84