This section makes it an offence to sell or possess « in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or on any land or vessel owned, leased or otherwise used by the Government of the United States » or « in the Indian country as defined in section 1151 of this title » to sell or possess with the intent to sell, any obscene visual representation. With regard to the definition of « material harmful to minors », the Court held that the requirement that material be evaluated « as a whole » in order to determine whether it is intended to meet the harmful interests of minors and has no serious value for minors means that « every communication, image, image, exhibition, etc. be considered as `a whole` » and not in context.154 However, « a sexual image that COPA may prohibit as harmful material could not be considered an appeal to the pruritic interest of minors if viewed in the context of an entire collection of Renaissance works. » 155 The Court also held that the term « minor » in the definition of « material harmful to minors » « is not restricted to achieve the purpose of the law » because it prevents website publishers from knowing whether it is « an infant, a five-year-old child or a seventeen-year-old person ». should be considered when determining whether the content of their website is « serious. value to [these] minors » or « arouse pruritic interest or be manifestly offensive to such minors .. » 156 The Dot Kids Implementation and Efficiency Act of 2002, P.L. 107-317, 47 U.S.C. Section 941 directs the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), an agency of the Department of Commerce, to establish a « new domain that provides access only to material appropriate for minors and not harmful to minors. » The definition of « harmful to minors » in the Act is essentially the same as that in COPA.197 Its definition of « suitable for minors » is « not psychologically or intellectually inappropriate for minors » and « meets (i) the educational, informational, intellectual or cognitive needs of minors; or (ii) the social, emotional or entertainment needs of minors. The URL of the new domain is www.kids.us; This website lists 22 websites that use the new domain. Justice Souter stated that he « would not object if I agreed with the majority of my colleagues. that an adult visitor to the library could, by law, receive an unlocked terminal just to ask. But the Federal Communications Commission, in its executive order implementing the law, specifically refused to establish a federal directive on when unblocking by local libraries would be appropriate under the law. In addition, the district court specifically stated that « unlocking may take days and may not be available, particularly in secondary libraries, which are often less staffed than primary libraries. » 195 He goes on to say, « The law only states that a library `may` unblock it, not that it must. » 196 In Federal Communications Commission v Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726, 749-750 (1978), the Supreme Court upheld the Federal Communications Commission`s power to regulate a radio program that was « indecent » but not obscene, writing: « We concluded in Ginsberg v.

New York, 390 U.S. 629 that the government`s interest in the `welfare of its youth` and in supporting the `assertion of parental authority in their own households` justified the regulation of otherwise protected expression. Id., pp. 640-639. The ease with which children have access to broadcasting material, combined with the concerns recognized in Ginsberg, justifies special treatment of indecent broadcasting. In Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844, 878 (1997), the Supreme Court has suggested that the strength of the Government`s interest in protecting minors may vary according to the age of the minor, parental authority and the artistic or educational value of the material in question. 489 U.S.

to 62. Although the Court uses the word « conviction » in this sentence, there does not appear to be any reason why a RICO prosecution cannot be based on an offence in another jurisdiction that has not already been prosecuted in that jurisdiction. In such a case, the prosecution would have to prove beyond doubt that the laws (including community standards in an obscenity case) of the state where the predicate offence was committed were violated. The court noted that « there is a significant difference between cable television and broadcast media, and this is where this case turns: cable systems have the ability to block unwanted channels from household to household. Blocking allows the government to support parental authority without harming the interests of consenting speakers and listeners. `115 In addition, targeted blocking is already necessary under Section 504 of the CDA, which, as stated above, requires cable operators to fully encrypt or completely block audio and video programmes which the subscriber does not wish to receive, free of charge, at the request of a cable subscriber.` If a plausible and less restrictive alternative to a substantial language restriction is proposed, the onus is on the government to prove that the alternative is ineffective in achieving its objective. The government has not lived up to that burden here. 116 The Court therefore concluded that, where the parents` rights were sufficiently disclosed, Article 504 was a less restrictive alternative to Article 505. In City of Littleton v. Z.J. Gifts D-4, L.L.C.

, the court upheld a city`s order on « adult business » licensing.30 The court initially rejected the city`s argument that the court in FW/PBS, Inc. v. Dallas had used the phrase « immediate judicial review » instead of the « expeditious final judicial decision » he had used in Freedman: « The First Amendment, as applied to an adult business licensing system, requires only assurance of expeditious access to the courts, not assurance of expeditious judicial decision. » 31 The Court held that `a delay in the adoption of a judicial decision, no less than a delay in access to a court, may prevent the grant of a licence `within a reasonable time`. 32 However, the Court found that the city`s order satisfied the requirement of an immediate judicial decision under the First Amendment. Sections 3008 and 3010 of Title 39 allow individuals to prevent emails that they find offensive from being sent to them. Section 3008 provides that a person who receives by mail « flattery advertising offered for sale that the recipient, in his or her sole discretion, deems erotically arousing or sexually provocative, » may apply to the post office for an order directing the sender not to send further items to the recipient, and the post office must do so.