WARNING: Some of the material on LaughWEB could easily be considered offensive by some people.
Before going any further, please read Our Disclaimer (yes, it is funny, but the last part is serious).
Click here to enter LaughWEB.
Users of Non-HTML 2.0 compliant browsers:
Click here to enter LaughWEB.
1) It fails to define indecent. Indecent could mean pornographic images or it could mean a photo of the "Venus de Milo." Indecent could mean a sexually explicit story or it could mean a large number of the jokes on LaughWEB. The breadth of the word "indecent" creates a law that could be used against almost any material that some federal prosecutor found objectionable. Do you support gay rights? An online support group for gay youth could be termed indecent.Opposed to abortion? Distributing anti-abortion material that in anyway described the procedure would violate a 1909 law (The Comstock Act) which was revived by the Communications Decency Act.2) Transmission does not mean what you think it does. Not many people would argue that it should be illegal to knowingly send a pornographic photo directly to the mailbox (electronic or otherwise) of a minor. This is made illegal by the Communications Decency Act. The problem with the CDA, is that it also makes it illegal to put indecent material anywhere where it might be accessed by a minor. Because I make available on LaughWEB risque jokes, if a minor accessed them, I could be charged with violating the CDA. Post a message saying "fuck the government" to a USENET newsgroup that you know is probably read by a minor? You may find yourself in jail for two years or fined several hundred thousand dollars. The CDA was crafted by people who either had no understanding of the nature of Internet communications, or who felt that it was in the best interests of the nation to reduce the entire Internet to a children's reading room in order to protect our "innocent youth".
For me, one of the biggest ironies of this law is that I am only seventeen myself. I am minor who is violating a law that was, presumably, designed to keep adults from corrupting minors. I ask that you look around LaughWEB. Judge for yourself whether the material on this site is so offensive and dangerous that I or any of my peers need a federal law to protect us from it.
One of the biggest problems in fighting this kind of law is that label that is often attached to the people who oppose it. Often, they are portrayed as defenders of pornography, smut, and perversion. Many people rationalize such legislation by saying "I don't download porn or send indecent material to minors, why should I care." Well, if this law is enforced, I will be forced to delete much of LaughWEB. You will not be able to enjoy the occasional risque joke, or limerick. You would not be able to browse, on-line, the full content of most art museums. You may not even be able to read a newspaper article that discussed breast cancer or rape. This law is not just about pornography and smut. It is about forcing Internet content providers, like myself, to tone down their content to meet the most conservative community standards. It is about preventing distribution on the Internet of material that is openly available, to anyone who wants to view it, in your local library, bookstore, art-museum, or movie theater.
As a webmaster I ask that you oppose a law that would restrict your viewing of much of the material you came to this site for. As a minor and a student, I ask that you oppose a law which denies me the right to make informed, intelligent decisions by forcing me to see only that which someone in some other community with other values has deemed appropriate for my viewing. And finally, as a citizen of the United States of America, I ask that you oppose a law which would drastically undermine one of the fundamental principles of our democracy.
Sincerely,
Jascha Franklin-Hodge
LaughWEB Administrator
Laugh Of The Day owner
joeshmoe@world.std.com
Click here to learn what you can do to fight the Communications Decency Act.