"This law, which covers both adults and minors, makes it illegal to publish an image of an identifiable minor that meets the definition of “intimate visual depiction,” which is defined as certain explicit nudity or sexual conduct, with intent to “arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person” or “abuse, humiliate, harass, or degrade the minor.”
It sounds like a no brainer because it is one. Banning child porn is pretty much the ur-example of Section 230 not protecting communications that are inherently criminal. Sure, the edges can be trimmed up and clarified a bit, but last I heard "abuse" and "harassment" are already legal categories courts are rather familiar with adjudicating. I'm really less concerned with your complaints that the intent section is a bit vague than I am concerned that you're apparently more concerned about that than the fact that the vague bit only applies after first satisfying the "certain explicit nudity or sexual conduct" part, which seems to me sufficient reason in itself to keep nude photos of children in sexual conduct off the Internet regardless of whether the intent was theoretically arousal or abuse or not.
The Hooks case is also pretty bullshit from the short summary given here unless he's somehow working at a school that surprisingly didn't include the usual caveat in his terms of employment that his personal conduct may not significantly damage the reputation of the school or he will be susceptible to firing. Frankly, they could have fired him just for the post having the F word in it, that's unprofessional enough, but let's turn to the full text, shall we? It's more than a little suspicious that you defended this man here but failed to actually include the post in question:
Hook: "Okay. I don't give a flying fuck about this Kirk person. Apparently he was a hate spreading Nazi. I wasn't paying close enough attention to the idiotic right fringe to even know who he was. I'm sorry for his family that he was a hate spreading Nazi and he got killed. I'm sure they deserved better. Maybe good people could now enter their lives. But geez, where was all this concern when the politicians in Minnesota were shot? And the school shootings? And Capitol Police? I have no thoughts or prayers for this hate spreading nazi. A shrug, maybe."
This isn't an informed person venturing into the public square for an exchange of thoughts in the marketplace of ideas, it's someone who openly brags about his utter ignorance of the man he's libeling as he smears mainstream Christian conservativism as "idiotic right fringe hate spreading Nazi" and virtue signals his complete apathy that a man was MURDERED on campus while debating students because apparently he doesn't consider the Right to Life to extend to anyone on the right. No, this man is clearly professionally unsuitable to ever be trusted with authority or instruction over students in any capacity and the idea that he could ever be given responsibility over the grades or welfare of conservative students is reprehensible. Vulgarity and blatant ignorance are already unacceptable from a professional, but writing off an entire category of people as acceptable targets of violence on campus is completely intolerable from someone charged with the care of such people. No, teachers don't get to say in any way shape or form, inside or outside their classroom, that their students can be murdered and their response will be "A shrug, maybe". That's not punishing him for a disfavored opinion, that's removing someone demonstrably unfit to fulfill the public trust required of the position.
From his terms of employment: Conduct and decorum. Employees are expected to be respectful when posting, avoiding disparaging, harassing, or threatening comments, even on personal pages. Online conduct can still affect professional standing.
End of story. There's no reasonable way to construe "idiotic right fringe hate spreading Nazi" as anything other than "disparaging" comments. ONLINE CONDUCT CAN STILL AFFECT PROFESSIONAL STANDING. It did, he deserves to be fired, for unprofessional conduct in violation of the conditions of his terms of employment.
"This law, which covers both adults and minors, makes it illegal to publish an image of an identifiable minor that meets the definition of “intimate visual depiction,” which is defined as certain explicit nudity or sexual conduct, with intent to “arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person” or “abuse, humiliate, harass, or degrade the minor.”
It sounds like a no brainer because it is one. Banning child porn is pretty much the ur-example of Section 230 not protecting communications that are inherently criminal. Sure, the edges can be trimmed up and clarified a bit, but last I heard "abuse" and "harassment" are already legal categories courts are rather familiar with adjudicating. I'm really less concerned with your complaints that the intent section is a bit vague than I am concerned that you're apparently more concerned about that than the fact that the vague bit only applies after first satisfying the "certain explicit nudity or sexual conduct" part, which seems to me sufficient reason in itself to keep nude photos of children in sexual conduct off the Internet regardless of whether the intent was theoretically arousal or abuse or not.
The Hooks case is also pretty bullshit from the short summary given here unless he's somehow working at a school that surprisingly didn't include the usual caveat in his terms of employment that his personal conduct may not significantly damage the reputation of the school or he will be susceptible to firing. Frankly, they could have fired him just for the post having the F word in it, that's unprofessional enough, but let's turn to the full text, shall we? It's more than a little suspicious that you defended this man here but failed to actually include the post in question:
Hook: "Okay. I don't give a flying fuck about this Kirk person. Apparently he was a hate spreading Nazi. I wasn't paying close enough attention to the idiotic right fringe to even know who he was. I'm sorry for his family that he was a hate spreading Nazi and he got killed. I'm sure they deserved better. Maybe good people could now enter their lives. But geez, where was all this concern when the politicians in Minnesota were shot? And the school shootings? And Capitol Police? I have no thoughts or prayers for this hate spreading nazi. A shrug, maybe."
This isn't an informed person venturing into the public square for an exchange of thoughts in the marketplace of ideas, it's someone who openly brags about his utter ignorance of the man he's libeling as he smears mainstream Christian conservativism as "idiotic right fringe hate spreading Nazi" and virtue signals his complete apathy that a man was MURDERED on campus while debating students because apparently he doesn't consider the Right to Life to extend to anyone on the right. No, this man is clearly professionally unsuitable to ever be trusted with authority or instruction over students in any capacity and the idea that he could ever be given responsibility over the grades or welfare of conservative students is reprehensible. Vulgarity and blatant ignorance are already unacceptable from a professional, but writing off an entire category of people as acceptable targets of violence on campus is completely intolerable from someone charged with the care of such people. No, teachers don't get to say in any way shape or form, inside or outside their classroom, that their students can be murdered and their response will be "A shrug, maybe". That's not punishing him for a disfavored opinion, that's removing someone demonstrably unfit to fulfill the public trust required of the position.
From his terms of employment: Conduct and decorum. Employees are expected to be respectful when posting, avoiding disparaging, harassing, or threatening comments, even on personal pages. Online conduct can still affect professional standing.
End of story. There's no reasonable way to construe "idiotic right fringe hate spreading Nazi" as anything other than "disparaging" comments. ONLINE CONDUCT CAN STILL AFFECT PROFESSIONAL STANDING. It did, he deserves to be fired, for unprofessional conduct in violation of the conditions of his terms of employment.