http://techliberation.com/2009/11/02/what-about-the-children-the-emerging-case-for-a-child-exception-to-first-amendment-protections/ Keeping politicians' hands off the Net & everything else related to technology Tue, 14 Feb 2012 19:26:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 http://techliberation.com/2009/11/02/what-about-the-children-the-emerging-case-for-a-child-exception-to-first-amendment-protections/comment-page-1/#comment-65475 juliansanchez Tue, 03 Nov 2009 21:15:31 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=23153#comment-65475 <p>What a strange framing from Campbell. The level of scrutiny is determined by the protected constitutional interest at issue—here, speech. The protection of children is the countervailing state interest placed in the balance at whatever level of scrutiny is involved. She's free to argue that child protection should be considered sufficiently compelling to trump speech rights in more cases than it currently is, but categorically tweaking the level of scrutiny applied is a bizarre--and I'd think wrongheaded--way to go about it.</p> What a strange framing from Campbell. The level of scrutiny is determined by the protected constitutional interest at issue—here, speech. The protection of children is the countervailing state interest placed in the balance at whatever level of scrutiny is involved. She's free to argue that child protection should be considered sufficiently compelling to trump speech rights in more cases than it currently is, but categorically tweaking the level of scrutiny applied is a bizarre–and I'd think wrongheaded–way to go about it.

]]> http://techliberation.com/2009/11/02/what-about-the-children-the-emerging-case-for-a-child-exception-to-first-amendment-protections/comment-page-1/#comment-63285 juliansanchez Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:15:31 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=23153#comment-63285 <p>What a strange framing from Campbell. The level of scrutiny is determined by the protected constitutional interest at issue—here, speech. The protection of children is the countervailing state interest placed in the balance at whatever level of scrutiny is involved. She's free to argue that child protection should be considered sufficiently compelling to trump speech rights in more cases than it currently is, but categorically tweaking the level of scrutiny applied is a bizarre--and I'd think wrongheaded--way to go about it.</p> What a strange framing from Campbell. The level of scrutiny is determined by the protected constitutional interest at issue—here, speech. The protection of children is the countervailing state interest placed in the balance at whatever level of scrutiny is involved. She's free to argue that child protection should be considered sufficiently compelling to trump speech rights in more cases than it currently is, but categorically tweaking the level of scrutiny applied is a bizarre–and I'd think wrongheaded–way to go about it.

]]>