Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The obscenity of Internet regulation in the United States

  • Published:
Ethics and Information Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

References

  • R. Alston. The governments regulatory framework for Internet content. University of New South Wales Law Journal Forum, 6(1): 4, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  • G. S. Alexander. Dilemmas of group autonomy: Residential associations and community. Cornell law Review, 75: 17–23, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  • J. Dibbell. A rape in cyberspace: How an evil clown, a haitian trickster spirit, two wizards, and a cast of dozens turned a database into a society. In: M. Stefik, editor, Internet Dreams, 1996, pp. 293–296.

  • J. Falk. The meaning of the web. Information and Society 14: 285–289, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  • K. Hafher. The epic saga of the well. Wired (May): 98, 1997.

  • P. Huelster. Cybersex and community standards. Boston University Law Review. 75 (May): 1995.

  • D. Kaplan. Cyber-smut: Regulating obscenity on the Internet. Stanford Law and Policy Review 9: 189, 194, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  • W. Linsley. The case against censorship of pornography. In: R. Baird, editor, Pornography: Private Right or Public Menace. Prometheus, Amherst, NY, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  • D. Loundy. “Whose standards?Whose community?” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin (August): 5, 1994.

  • B. Lunsford. Current developments in the law: United States v. Thomas. The Boston Public Internet Law Journal 805: 1997.

  • J. K. Michael. Obscenity: Where 's ‘The nastiest place on earth?'from Roth to Cyberspace, or, whose community is it, anyway? Creighton Law Review, 30(June): 1405, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  • H. Mintz. Offensive to professional standards: The appeal of a milpitas couple 's computer pornography conviction focuses far more on the trial counsel 's performance than the 1st amendment. The Recorder (January): 1, 1195.

  • M. Mitchell. Germany forces CompuServe to Censor Sex on the Internet. International Herald Tribune (December): 29, 1995.

  • S. Petrie. Indecent proposals: How each branch of the federal government overstepped its institutional authority in the development of Internet obscenity law. Stanford Law Review, 49: 637, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  • H. Rheingold. The Virtual Community, p. 3. Online at http: //www.rheingold.com/vc/book.

  • Student collection. Developments in the law: The law and cyberspace. Harvard Law Review 112. Online at http: // www.harwardlawreview.org/issues/1127_1586.htm.

  • L. Van Gelder. The strange case of the electronic lover. Ms. (October): 1985.

  • J. Wallace and M. Mangan. Sex Laws and Cyberspace. Henry Holt, New York, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  • H. White. Anatomy of Censorship: Why the Censors Have it Wrong. University Press of America, NewYork, 1997, p. 2.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of philosophy, Bowling Green State University, 300 Shatzel Hall, OH, USA)

    A. White

Authors
  1. A. White
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

White, A. The obscenity of Internet regulation in the United States. Ethics and Information Technology 6, 111–119 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-004-4589-1

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-004-4589-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation