The Supreme Court decision on the Internet and pornography is analytically infuriating. Justice John Paul Stevens used as the principal argument for the majority opinion invalidating the congressional act the assertion that the Internet is going to do more good than harm. He went so far in this line of argument as to say that such harm as it does is unmeasured and perhaps impalpable—the old argument: Who ever got hurt by pornography? But to argue that more good than harm can come from the Internet is on the order of saying that more good than harm can come from drugs and therefore...
(The entire page is 796 words.)
Want to read the whole thing?
Subscribe now to read the rest of this article. Plus, get access to:
- 30,000+ literature study guides
- Critical essays on more than 30,000 works of literature from Salem on Literature (exclusive to eNotes)
- An unparalleled literary criticism section. 40,000 full-length or excerpted essays.
- Content from leading academic publishers, all easily citable with our "Cite this page" button.
- 100% satisfaction guarantee READ MORE