Okay, so in a moment of obsession, I hit my old law books and notebooks and came up with a few cases of interest. The first is important because it establishes the connection between the internet and literature. It gives the "Internet" the highest level of First Amendment protection:


American Library Association v. U.S. Department of Justice and Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844, 117 S.Ct. 2329, 138 L.Ed.2d. 874 (1997)
In a 9-0 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court on June 26, 1997, declared unconstitutional a federal law making it a crime to send or display indecent material on line in a way available to minors. The decision in the consolidated cases completed a successful challenge to the so-called Communications Decency Act by the Citizens Internet Empowerment Coalition, in which the American Library Association and the Freedom to Read Foundation played leading roles. The Court held that speech on the Internet is entitled to the highest level of First Amendment protection, similar to the protection the Court gives to books and newspapers.
____________________________________

Second was my favorite legal tester, Larry Flynt, and his parody/satire protection:

Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 108 S.Ct. 876, 99 L.Ed.2d. 41 (1988)
Hustler*Magazine published a parody of a liquor advertisement in which Rev. Jerry Falwell described his "first time" as a drunken encounter with his mother in an outhouse. A unanimous Supreme Court held that a public figure had to show actual malice in order to recover for intentional infliction of emotional distress as a result of a parody in a magazine. The Court held that political cartoons and satire such as this parody "have played a prominent role in public and political debate. And although the outrageous caricature in this case "is at best a distant cousin of political cartoons," the Court could see no standard to distinguish among types of parodies that would not harm public discourse, which would be poorer without such satire.


__________

Third is private thought law:

Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 55, 22 L. Ed. 2d 542, 89 S. Ct. 1243 (1969)
A man found to possess obscene materials in his home for his private use was convicted of possessing obscene materials in violation of the state laws of Georgia. The Supreme Court overturned the conviction, holding that Constitution protects the right to receive information and ideas, regardless of their social worth, and to be generally free from governmental intrusions into one's privacy on the grounds that the government "cannot constitutionally premise legislation on the desirability of controlling a person's private thoughts."

_________________________

Fourth is a case that my be of interest in case anyone finds it objectionable that a minor might read these pages:

Butler v. Michigan, 352 U.S. 380, 1 L. Ed. 2d 412, 77 S. Ct. 524 (1957)
A man convicted of selling "a book containing obscene, immoral, lewd, lascivious language, or descriptions, tending to incite minors to violent or depraved or immoral acts, manifestly tending to the corruption of the morals of youth" to a police officer appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court. The Court overturned the conviction and struck down the law, holding that the state's attempt to quarantine the general reading public against books not too rugged for grown men and women to read in order to shield juvenile innocence "is to burn the house to roast the pig." Famously, the Court ruled that the state of Michigan could not "reduce[s] the adult population of Michigan to reading only what is fit for children."

_____________________________

There is no Supreme Court ruling from 1968- or any other year- in which an arrest and conviction of a drug addict was overturned on the basis that the person was an addict. Being an addict-or alcoholic, for that matter- is not a defense for any crime, including but not limited to public intoxication and/or possession of a controlled substance.
9ski9 Reviewed by 9ski9 on . The Law ive seen a few ppl using this as their signature. "Any posts made by me are purely fictional in nature and by no means is anything I say to be taken seriously. I do not grow or condone the growing of anything not legal. Any and all pictures I post are pictures widley available on the internet and any discussions I am involved in are purely hypothetical or are commentary in nature and should not constitute advice or be considered advice to assist in activities that are deemed illegal." Rating: 5