|
evanwish
May 28, 2008, 6:36 PM
Post #26 of 44
(6088 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 23, 2007
Posts: 1040
|
krusher4 wrote: So every time climbing gets inconvenient we're just putting in bolts now? How about climbing somewhere else or hiring a climbing wall for the weekend? haaah ok so here's my stance, i'm a trad climber and don't do sport climbs EVER! i don't mind clipping the occasional bolt when it is acctually needed, but i do not rely on them UNLESS they are the only form of protection available. this rock would be used for a Boy Scout Camp that would service over 200 kids a year the only features at the top of the rock are incut holds and the only thing that would stick would be leeper cams and hooks... not very safe... oh and they're not going to bring an artaficial road high into the sierra, and especially for the whole summer!
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
May 28, 2008, 6:37 PM
Post #27 of 44
(6088 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
trenchdigger wrote: j_ung wrote: trenchdigger wrote: majid_sabet wrote: ... You start drilling with motorized drill in NP, you will get a fine or go to jail . Well, you're wrong on that count too. There's this little known, seldom visited National Park called "Joshua Tree" that does allow the use of power drills by permit in non-Wilderness areas. http://www.nps.gov/...urvisit/climbing.htm Add the New River Gorge to that list. New River Gorge? Who's heard of that place? That's only one step up on the obscure climbing area list from Joshua Tree. Wait, New River Gorge is an actual place? I totally made that up just now.
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
May 28, 2008, 6:57 PM
Post #28 of 44
(6079 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
Public Law 88-577 (16 U.S. C. 1131-1136) 88th Congress, Second Session September 3, 1964 AN ACT To establish a National Wilderness Preservation System for the permanent good of the whole people, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SHORT TITLE Section 1. This Act may be cited as the "Wilderness Act". WILDERNESS SYSTEM ESTABLISHED STATEMENT OF POLICY Sec. 2. (a) In order to assure that an increasing population, accompanied by expanding settlement and growing mechanization, does not occupy and modify all areas within the United States and its possessions, leaving no lands designated for preservation and protection in their natural condition, it is hereby declared to be the policy of the Congress to secure for the American people of present and future generations the benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness. For this purpose there is hereby established a National Wilderness Preservation System to be composed of federally owned areas designated by Congress as "wilderness areas", and these shall be administered for the use and enjoyment of the American people in such manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use as wilderness, and so as to provide for the protection of these areas, the preservation of their wilderness character, and for the gathering and dissemination of information regarding their use and enjoyment as wilderness; and no Federal lands shall be designated as "wilderness areas" except as provided for in this Act or by a subsequent Act. (b) The inclusion of an area in the National Wilderness Preservation System notwithstanding, the area shall continue to be managed by the Department and agency having jurisdiction thereover immediately before its inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System unless otherwise provided by Act of Congress. No appropriation shall be available for the payment of expenses or salaries for the administration of the National Wilderness Preservation System as a separate unit nor shall any appropriations be available for additional personnel stated as being required solely for the purpose of managing or administering areas solely because they are included within the National Wilderness Preservation System. DEFINITION OF WILDERNESS (c) A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value. NATIONAL WILDERNESS PRESERVATION SYSTEM -- EXTENT OF SYSTEM Sec. 3. (a) All areas within the national forests classified at least 30 days before September 30, 1964, by the Secretary of Agriculture or the Chief of the Forest Service as "wilderness", "wild", or "canoe" are hereby designated as wilderness areas. The Secretary of Agriculture shall -- (1) Within one year after September 30, 1964, file a map and legal description of each wilderness area with the Interior and Insular Affairs Committees of the United States Senate and the House of Representatives, and such descriptions shall have the same force and effect as if included in this Act: Provided, however, That correction of clerical and typographical errors in such legal descriptions and maps may be made. (2) Maintain, available to the public, records pertaining to said wilderness areas, including maps and legal descriptions, copies of regulations governing them, copies of public notices of, and reports submitted to Congress regarding pending additions, eliminations, or modifications. Maps, legal descriptions, and regulations pertaining to wilderness areas within their respective jurisdictions also shall be available to the public in the offices of regional foresters, national forest supervisors, and forest rangers. (b) The Secretary of Agriculture shall, within ten years after September 30, 1964, review, as to its suitability or nonsuitability for preservation as wilderness, each area in the national forests classified on September 3, 1964, by the Secretary of Agriculture or the Chief of the Forest Service as "primitive" and report his findings to the President. The President shall advise the United States Senate and House of Representatives of his recommendations with respect to the designation as "wilderness" or other reclassification of each area on which review has been completed, together with maps and a definition of boundaries. Such advice shall be given with respect to not less than one-third of all the areas now classified as "primitive" within three years after September 3, 1964, not less than two-thirds within seven years after September 3, 1964, and the remaining areas within ten years after September 3, 1964. Each recommendation of the President for designation as "wilderness" shall become effective only if so provided by an Act of Congress. Areas classified as "primitive" on September 3, 1964, shall continue to be administered under the rules and regulations affecting such areas on September 3, 1964, until Congress has determined otherwise. Any such area may be increased in size by the President at the time he submits his recommendation to the Congress by not more than five thousand acres with no more than one thousand two hundred and eighty acres of such increase in any one compact unit; if it is proposed to increase the size of any such area by more than five thousand acres or by more than one thousand two hundred and eighty acres in any one compact unit the increase in size shall not become effective until acted upon by Congress. Nothing herein contained shall limit the President in proposing, as part of his recommendations to Congress, the alteration of existing boundaries of primitive areas or recommending the addition of any contiguous area of national forest lands predominantly of wilderness value. Not withstanding any other provisions of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture may complete his review and delete such area as may be necessary, but not to exceed seven thousand acres, from the southern tip of the Gore Range-Eagles Nest Primitive Area, Colorado, if the Secretary determines that such action is in the public interest. (c) Within ten years after September 3, 1964, the Secretary of the Interior shall review every roadless area of five thousand contiguous acres or more in the national parks, monuments and other units of the national park system and every such area of, and every roadless island within, the national wildlife refuges and game ranges, under his jurisdiction on September 3, 1964, and shall report to the President his recommendation as to the suitability or nonsuitability of each such area or island for preservation as wilderness. The President shall advise the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives of his recommendation with respect to the designation as wilderness of each such area or island on which review has been completed, together with a map thereof and a definition of its boundaries. Such advice shall be given with respect to not less than one-third of the areas and islands to be reviewed under this subsection within three years after September 3, 1964, not less than two-thirds within seven years of September 3, 1964, and the remainder within ten years of September 3, 1964. A recommendation of the President for designation as wilderness shall become effective only if so provided by an Act of Congress. Nothing contained herein shall, by implication or otherwise, be construed to lessen the present statutory authority of the Secretary of the Interior with respect to the maintenance of roadless areas within units of the national park system. (d) (1) The Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior shall, prior to submitting any recommendations to the President with respect to the suitability of any area for preservation as wilderness -- (A) give such public notice of the proposed action as they deem appropriate, including publication in the Federal Register and in a newspaper having general circulation in the area or areas in the vicinity of the affected land; (B) hold a public hearing or hearings at a location or locations convenient to the area affected. The hearings shall be announced through such means as the respective Secretaries involved deem appropriate, including notices in the Federal Register and in newspapers of general circulation in the area: Provided, That if the lands involved are located in more than one State, at least one hearing shall be held in each State in which a portion of the land lies; (C) at least thirty days before the date of a hearing advise the Governor of each State and the governing board of each county, or in Alaska the borough, in which the lands are located, and Federal departments and agencies concerned, and invite such officials and Federal agencies to submit their views on the proposed action at the hearing or by not later than thirty days following the date of the hearing. (2) Any views submitted to the appropriate Secretary under the provisions of (1) of this subsection with respect to any area shall be included with any recommendations to the President and to Congress with respect to such area. (e) Any modification or adjustment of boundaries of any wilderness area shall be recommended by the appropriate Secretary after public notice of such proposal and public hearing or hearings as provided on subsection (d) of this section. The proposed modification or adjustment shall then be recommended with map and description thereof to the President. The President shall advise the United States Senate and the House of Representatives of his recommendations with respect to such modification or adjustment and such recommendations shall become effective only on the same manner as provided for in subsections (b) and (c) of this section. USE OF WILDERNESS AREAS Sec. 4. (a) The purposes of this Act are hereby declared to be within and supplemental to the purposes for which national forests and units of the national park and national wildlife refuge systems are established and administered and -- (1) Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to be in interference with the purpose for which national forests are established as set forth in the Act of June 4, 1897 (30 Stat. 11), and the Multiple Use Sustained-Yield Act of June 12, 1960 (74 Stat. 215). (2) Nothing in this Act shall modify the restrictions and provisions of the Shipstead-Nolan Act (Public Law 539, Seventy-first Congress, July 10, 1930; 46 Stat. 1020),the Thye-Blatnik Act (Public Law 733, Eightieth Congress, June 22, 1948; 62 Stat. 568), and the Humphrey-Thye-Blatnik-Andersen Act (Public Law 607, Eighty-fourth Congress, June 22.1965; 70 Stat. 326), as applying to the Superior National Forest or the regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture. (3) Nothing in this Act shall modify the statutory authority under which units of the national park system are created. Further, the designation of any area of any park, monument, or other unit of the national park system as a wilderness area pursuant to this Act shall in no manner lower the standards evolved for the use and preservation of such park, monument, or other unit of the national park system in accordance with the Act of August 25, 1916, the statutory authority under which the area was created, or any other Act of Congress which might pertain to or affect such area, including, but not limited to, the Act of June 8, 1906 (34 Stat. 225; 16 U.S.C. 432 et seq.); section 3(2) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 796 (2) ); and the Act of August 21,1935 (49 Stat. 666; 16 U.S.C. 461 et seq.). (b) Except as otherwise provided in this Act, each agency administering any area designated as wilderness shall be responsible for preserving the wilderness character of the area and shall so administer such area for such other purposes for which it may have been established as also to preserve its wilderness character. Except as otherwise provided in this Act, wilderness areas shall be devoted to the public purposes of recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation, and historical use. PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN USES (c) Except as specifically provided for in this Act, and subject to existing private rights, there shall be no commercial enterprise and no permanent road within any wilderness area designated by this Act and, except as necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the purpose of this Act (including measures required in emergencies involving the health and safety of persons within the area), there shall be no temporary road, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of mechanical transport, and no structure or installation within any such area. SPECIAL PROVISIONS (d) The following special provisions are hereby made: (1) Within wilderness areas designated by this Act the use of aircraft or motorboats, where these uses have already become established, may be permitted to continue subject to such restrictions as the Secretary of Agriculture deems desirable. In addition, such measures may be taken as may be necessary in the control of fire, insects, and diseases, subject to such conditions as the Secretary deems desirable. (2) Nothing in this Act shall prevent within national forest wilderness areas any activity, including prospecting, for the purpose of gathering information about mineral or other resources, if such activity is carried on in a manner compatible with the preservation of the wilderness environment. Furthermore, in accordance with such program as the Secretary of the Interior shall develop and conduct in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, such areas shall be surveyed on a planned, recurring basis consistent with the concept of wilderness preservation by the Geological Survey and the Bureau of Mines to determine the mineral values, if any, that may be present; and the results of such surveys shall be made available to the public and submitted to the President and Congress. (3) Not withstanding any other provisions of this Act, until midnight December 31, 1983, the United States mining laws and all laws pertaining to mineral leasing shall, to the extent as applicable prior to September 3, 1964, extend to those national forest lands designated by this Act as "wilderness areas"; subject, however, to such reasonable regulations governing ingress and egress as may be prescribed by the Secretary of Agriculture consistent with the use of the land for mineral location and development and exploration, drilling, and production, and use of land for transmission lines, waterlines, telephone lines, or facilities necessary in exploring, drilling, producing, mining, and processing operations, including where essential the use of mechanized ground or air equipment and restoration as near as practicable of the surface of the land disturbed in performing prospecting, location, and , in oil and gas leasing, discovery work, exploration, drilling, and production, as soon as they have served their purpose. Mining locations lying within the boundaries of said wilderness areas shall be held and used solely for mining or processing operations and uses reasonably incident thereto; and hereafter, subject to valid existing rights, all patents issued under the mining laws of the United States affecting national forest lands designated by this Act as wilderness areas shall convey title to the mineral deposits within the claim, together with the right to cut and use so much of the mature timber therefrom as may be needed in the extraction, removal, and beneficiation of the mineral deposits, if needed timber is not otherwise reasonably available, and if the timber is cut under sound principles of forest management as defined by the national forest rules and regulations, but each such patent shall reserve to the United States all title in or to the surface of the lands and products thereof, and no use of the surface of the claim or the resources therefrom not reasonably required for carrying on mining or prospecting shall be allowed except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act: Provided, That, unless hereafter specifically authorized, no patent within wilderness areas designated by this Act shall issue after December 31, 1983, except for the valid claims existing on or before December 31, 1983. Mining claims located after September 3, 1964, within the boundaries of wilderness areas designated by this Act shall create no rights in excess of those rights which may be patented under the provisions of this subsection. Mineral leases, permits, and licenses covering lands within national forest wilderness areas designated by this Act shall contain such reasonable stipulations as may be prescribed by the Secretary of Agriculture for the protection of the wilderness character of the land consistent with the use of the land for the purposes for which they are leased, permitted, or licensed. Subject to valid rights then existing, effective January 1, 1984, the minerals in lands designated by this Act as wilderness areas are withdrawn from all forms of appropriation under the mining laws and from disposition under all laws pertaining to mineral leasing and all amendments thereto. (4) Within wilderness areas in the national forests designated by this Act, (1) the President may, within a specific area and in accordance with such regulations as he may deem desirable, authorize prospecting for water resources, the establishment and maintenance of reservoirs, water-conservation works, power projects, transmission lines, and other facilities needed in the public interest, including the road construction and maintenance essential to development and use thereof, upon his determination that such use or uses in the specific area will better serve the interests of the United States and the people thereof than will its denial; and (2) the grazing of livestock, where established prior to September 3, 1964, shall be permitted to continue subject to such reasonable regulations as are deemed necessary by the Secretary of Agriculture. (5) Other provisions of this Act to the contrary notwithstanding, the management of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area, formerly designated as the Superior, Little Indian Sioux, and Caribou Roadless Areas, in the Superior National Forest, Minnesota, shall be in accordance with the general purpose of maintaining, without unnecessary restrictions on other uses, including that of timber, the primitive character of the area, particularly in the vicinity of lakes, streams, and portages: Provided, That nothing in this Act shall preclude the continuance within the area of any already established use of motorboats. (6) Commercial services may be performed within the wilderness areas designated by this Act to the extent necessary for activities which are proper for realizing the recreational or other wilderness purposes of the areas. (7) Nothing in this Act shall constitute an express or implied claim or denial on the part of the Federal Government as to exemption from State water laws. (8) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as affecting the jurisdiction or responsibilities of the several States with respect to wildlife and fish in the national forests. STATE AND PRIVATE LANDS WITHIN WILDERNESS AREAS Sec. 5. (a) In any case where State-owned or privately owned land is completely surrounded by national forest lands within areas designated by this Act as wilderness, such State or private owner shall be given such rights as may be necessary to assure adequate access to such State-owned or privately owned land by such State or private owner and their successors in interest, or the State-owned land or privately owned land shall be exchanged for federally owned land in the same State of approximately equal value under authorities available to the Secretary of Agriculture: Provided, however, That the United States shall not transfer to a state or private owner any mineral interests unless the State or private owner relinquishes or causes to be relinquished to the United States the mineral interest in the surrounded land. (b) In any case where valid mining claims or other valid occupancies are wholly within a designated national forest wilderness area, the Secretary of Agriculture shall, by reasonable regulations consistent with the preservation of the area as wilderness, permit ingress and egress to such surrounded areas by means which have been or are being customarily enjoyed with respect to other such areas similarly situated. (c) Subject to the appropriation of funds by Congress, the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to acquire privately owned land within the perimeter of any area designated by this Act as wilderness if (1) the owner concurs in such acquisition or (2) the acquisition is specifically authorized by Congress. GIFTS, BEQUESTS, AND CONTRIBUTIONS Sec. 6. (a) The Secretary of Agriculture may accept gifts or bequests of land within wilderness areas designated by this Act for preservation as wilderness. The Secretary of Agriculture may also accept gifts or bequests of land adjacent to wilderness areas designated by this Act for preservation as wilderness if he has given sixty days advance notice thereof to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Land accepted by the Secretary of Agriculture under this section shall become part of the wilderness area involved. Regulations with regard to any such land may be in accordance with such agreements, consistent with the policy of this Act, as are made at the time of such gift, or such conditions, consistent with such policy, as may be included in, and accepted with, such bequest. (b) The Secretary of Agriculture or the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to accept private contributions and gifts to be used to further the purpose of this Act. ANNUAL REPORTS Sec. 7. At the opening of each session of Congress, the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior shall jointly report to the President for transmission to Congress on the status of the wilderness system, including a list and descriptions of the areas in the system, regulations in effect, and other pertinent information, together with any recommendations they may care to make. Approved September 3, 1964. _____________________ LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: HOUSE REPORTS: No. 1538 accompanying H.R. 9070 (Comm. on Interior & Insular Affairs) and No. 1829 (Comm. of Conference). SENATE REPORT: No. 109 (Comm. on Interior & Insular Affairs). CONGRESSIONAL RECORD: Vol. 109 (1963): Apr. 4, 8, considered in Senate. Apr. 9, considered and passed Senate. Vol. 110 (1964): July 28, considered in House July 30, considered and passed House, amended, in lieu of H. R. 9070. Aug. 20, House and Senate agreed to conference report. ===================================== read this http://www.wildwilderness.org/wi/bolting.htm and this http://www.americanalpineclub.org/pdfs/fixedcon.pdf
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
May 28, 2008, 7:03 PM
Post #29 of 44
(6072 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
I guess you read it. Too bad you don't understand it.
|
|
|
|
|
CaptainPolution
May 28, 2008, 7:44 PM
Post #30 of 44
(6064 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 10, 2007
Posts: 330
|
evanwish wrote: salamanizer wrote: $200 an hour w/a two hour minimum. i'm sure that's an exageration.. if not.. that'd be way too much for a simple 2 bolt anchor... thanks though lol no he's dead serious. that is how much labor is these days. I will supervise for $50/hr. plus you gotta stop carrying so many hexes
|
|
|
|
|
evanwish
May 28, 2008, 8:08 PM
Post #31 of 44
(6058 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 23, 2007
Posts: 1040
|
CaptainPolution wrote: evanwish wrote: salamanizer wrote: $200 an hour w/a two hour minimum. i'm sure that's an exageration.. if not.. that'd be way too much for a simple 2 bolt anchor... thanks though lol no he's dead serious. that is how much labor is these days. I will supervise for $50/hr. plus you gotta stop carrying so many hexes oh..... i see... haha yeah i've stopped carying them most of the time.. i'm buying a bunch more cams so i shouldn't have to worry about not having enough anymore..
|
|
|
|
|
angry
May 29, 2008, 6:26 PM
Post #32 of 44
(5979 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2003
Posts: 8405
|
j_ung wrote: I guess you read it. Too bad you don't understand it. I can copy and paste too. Background Internet PORNOGRAPHY is a battlefield in U.S. law. Since the explosion of PUBLIC INTEREST in the Net in the 1990s, the public, lawmakers, and the courts have argued over how to control online porn. Congress and state legislatures have passed several laws aimed at protecting children from exposure to socalled cyber porn, but the most sweeping of these have often failed to pass constitutional tests. The failure of these laws in court means this popular yet controversial medium faces few regulations. According to Forbes magazine, the online porn business in 2001 swelled to $1 billion a year, a significant part of a larger industry estimated to earn anywhere between $3 and $8 billion annually. In some respects, the issue continues a legal struggle many decades old. Opponents of pornography have long tried to control it on moral grounds, even as proponents sought to protect it as a valid expression of free speech. Traditionally, opponents won these battles. The Supreme Court established that OBSCENITY is not protected by the First Amendment, but the difficult question in each case has been defining what is and what is not obscene. Its rulings gradually shifted from a broad, forbidding position of the late 1950s to holding in the 1970s that communities could set their own standards for obscenity. Replayed in countless courtrooms, the tug-of-war between these camps has continued ever since. But the fight over cyber porn carries traditional arguments into new areas shaped by technology. A chief concern is that the Internet allows minors easy access to it through search engines—sometimes even accidentally. In 2001, U.S. SOLICITOR GENERAL Ted Olson contended that minors could stumble upon or intentionally enter 28,000 commercial porn websites. Also of worry is the Internet's ability to facilitate the illegal dissemination of child pornography. And the ubiquity of Internet access has raised new social problems by introducing pornography into new settings, such as public libraries and the workplace. Milestones in the development of Internet pornography law include the following. * The Supreme Court established that obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment in Roth v. United States (1957), declaring obscenity to be "utterly without redeeming social importance." * After subsequent cases showed the difficulty of finding a conclusive definition of obscenity, the Court restated its definition in Miller v. California (1973). It substituted a detailed three-part test ultimately to be used by each locality—the so-called "community standards" test. * The Court ruled that child pornography is not a form of expression protected under the constitution in New York v. Ferber (1982). It has also upheld a state law prohibiting the possession and viewing of child porn in Osborne v. Ohio (1990). * Seeking to control Internet porn, Congress first passed legislation in 1996. The Communications Decency Act (CDA) criminalized the dissemination over computer networks of obscene or indecent material to children.. Immediately blocked from enforcement by the courts, it was ruled unconstitutional under the First Amendment in 1997. * Seeking to update federal child pornography law for the Internet, Congress passed the Child Pornography Prevention Act (CPPA) of 1996. Among other features, the law criminalized any visual depiction that "appears to be" child pornography, including so-called virtual porn created by computer. After lower courts struck down provisions of the STATUTE, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, with a verdict expected in late 2002. * The Child Online Protection Act (COPA) of 1998 revived the CDA by modifying its scope. COPA criminalized the use of the World Wide Web to sell material harmful to minors. Ruled unconstitutional, the case remained on appeal before the Supreme Court with a decision expected by summer 2002. * The Protection of Children from Sexual Predators Act of 1998 included Internet-specific provisions for reporting child pornography to authorities and prohibiting federal prisoners from being allowed unsupervised Internet usage. * Two federal laws regulate access to Internet pornography at libraries and schools, the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) and the Neighborhood Internet Protection Act. Together, they require so-called filtering software to be installed on computers in public schools and libraries as a condition for federal funding. Both laws were challenged in court in early 2002, with their outcome uncertain. As these federal cases suggest, recent outcomes have favored those who regard federal control of Internet pornography as CENSORSHIP. That does not mean the issues are settled, as indeed partisans on both sides of the issue eagerly anticipate forthcoming court decisions on major cases in 2002. Federal Restrictions on Cyber Porn Child Pornography Child pornography has long been treated severely under both federal and state law. Congress first addressed the issue with the Protection of Children Against Sexual Exploitation Act of 1977. Lawmakers later toughened restrictions in the Child Protection Act of 1984, the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act of 1988, and the Child Protection Restoration and Penalties Enhancement Act of 1990. In the 1990s, lawmakers twice passed legislation targeting child porn online. The first was the Child Pornography Prevention Act (CPPA) of 1996, designed both to close loopholes in existing federal child pornography law and address new technological issues by the following: * Criminalizing the act of knowingly possessing, selling, receiving, sending, or transmitting child pornography via the internet or e-mail. * Criminalizing so-called "virtual" depictions of child pornography, those that appear to involve minors and those created by computer graphics software. Lower federal courts split over the constitutionality of some provisions in the law, and an appeal in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition will be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2002. The Protection of Children from Sexual Predators Act of 1998 contains further anti-child porn provisions. Title II of the law contains the following provisions: * Provides for the prosecution of individuals for the production of child pornography if the visual depiction was produced with materials that have been mailed, shipped, or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, including by computer. * Tightens previous federal law by making it a criminal offense to possess for even one depiction of child pornography * Outlines responsibilities for Internet Service Providers in reporting child pornography to authorities * Increases federal criminal penalties for child pornography, which include fines and prison sentences ranging from 15 to 30 years Disseminating Cyber Porn to Minors Although several federal laws have sought to control Internet porn, none has specifically tried to forbid it. In large part this is a recognition of the legal protections pornography enjoyed toward the end of the twentieth century. CASE LAW has established that much pornography is protected speech under the First Amendment. Obscenity is not protected. However, as the Supreme Court's "community standards" doctrine acknowledges, communities measure obscenity differently: what is likely to be considered obscene by a jury in Utah is not guaranteed to similarly move a jury in New York. The difficulty of formulating one broad standard of obscenity for all communities is made even greater by the Internet's being a global network, available everywhere at once. Thus rather than trying to eliminate cyber porn, Congress has twice sought to protect children from exposure to it. These laws have yet to be enforced. Both wound up in court, where sections of each were ruled unconstitutional. Crucially, the fate of one law still remains as of 2002 on appeal. The Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996 was lawmakers' first attempt to regulate the availability of indecent and obscene material online to minors. The CDA prohibited the "knowing" dissemination of such material to minors over computer networks or telephone lines, establishing penalties for violations of up to five years IMPRISONMENT and fines of up to $250,000. But it quickly fell to a legal challenge brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and a coalition of major publishers. Bringing a traditional First Amendment case against censorship, they argued successfully that the law was too broad: in trying to protect kids, its prohibitions would have limited the speech of adults to a level suitable for children. After a special three-judge panel ruled against the law in Philadelphia in 1996, the Supreme Court by 7-2 vote in American Civil Liberties Union v. Reno (1997) held that the law unconstitutionally abridged FREEDOM OF SPEECH, and thus struck down key provisions. Seeking to draft a constitutionally viable law, Congress responded by passing the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) of 1998. More narrowly written, COPA took aim at commercial online porn sites that disseminate material to minors. And, anticipating constitutional objections, it mandated that criminal cases brought under it would be tried according to contemporary community standards. The law set stiff penalties of $150,000 for each day of violation and up to six months in prison. However, COPA suffered similar setbacks in court after the ACLU and several non-pornographic online websites successfully contested it, first in federal district court in Philadelphia and then before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit. As before with the CDA, the JUSTICE DEPARTMENT has continued to appeal; this time, it has argued that online porn is even more readily accessible to children and thus in need of urgent control. The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in late 2001 and was expected to rule on the case, Ashcroft v. ACLU, in summer 2002. If the Supreme Court reverses the two lower rulings, an enforceable COPA would represent a milestone in the evolution of Internet law. It would almost certainly open a flood of LITIGATION by opponents of pornography and pose new, difficult questions of JURISDICTION. But even if the Court finds the law unconstitutional, few legal observers believe this will be the last word. It is likely that legislators will continue to press forward to find other legal means to regulate the availability of online porn to minors. Filtering in Federally-funded Public Schools and Libraries In another attempt to protect children from exposure to cyber porn, Congress passed two laws in 2000 aimed at public schools and public libraries. Federally-funded institutions of this kind are required to put in effect Internet safety policies in order to continue qualifying for federal support. They must install socalled Internet filters on their public computers: these are commercially-available software programs, with names like Cyber Patrol and Net Nanny, that intercept and block pornographic materials. Under the terms of the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) and the Neighborhood Internet Protection Act (NCIPA), filters had to be in place by 2001, although libraries were ultimately given extra time to comply. Proving as controversial as the CDA and COPA, the laws have been challenged by the American Library Association and civil liberties groups. They have argued that the law will result in censorship because it relies upon inaccurate technology, citing EVIDENCE that some software filters erroneously block non-pornographic material, too. Oral TESTIMONY on the case was heard in spring 2002, with a verdict expected later in the year. State Laws State laws on Internet pornography have evolved rapidly. Prior to the rise in popularity of the Internet, most states already had laws on the books regulating age limits for purchasing pornography as well as statutes criminalizing child pornography. Many legislatures saw a need for legislation to respond to the vicissitudes of new technology. Between 1995 and 2002, nearly two dozen states considered bills that would control in some fashion access to Internet pornography. More than a dozen states enacted them. Closely resembling federal law, state laws break down into two broad categories. In the first and broadest, the laws forbid the access by minors to what the laws usually call "harmful materials"— verbal and visual information that includes, but is not necessarily limited to, pornography. Sometimes these laws target "indecent" material; for example, Oklahoma and New York law each criminalize the transmission of indecent materials to minors. Most state laws on transmission of indecent materials target exposure in public schools and libraries. Their remedy is to require, and in at least one case merely recommend, that these facilities install socalled Internet filtering software on their computers. At least six states have passed such laws: Arizona, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, South Carolina, and Tennessee. Twenty more states were considering such legislation in 2001-2002. Like federal law, a second category of state law targets virtual child pornography. Aggressively defining this new category of criminal offense, these laws treat so-called virtual porn as severely as actual photography of minors. In the mid-1990s, for instance, both Kansas and Montana expanded their existing statutes to prohibit transmission and possession of such images, while other states such as Missouri and Minnesota enacted new laws. In early court challenges, much more sweeping state cyber porn laws failed to pass constitutional tests in three states. In American Library Association v. Pataki (1997), a federal judge blocked enforcement of a New York statue prohibiting online indecency that had been modeled on the federal Communications Decency Act, ruling that it violated the Constitution's Commerce Clause. In ACLU v. Johnson (1998), a federal district judge ruled on First Amendment grounds that New Mexico could not enforce a law criminalizing the online dissemination of any expression that involves nudity or sexual content. And in another victory for First Amendment advocates, a federal judge blocked Michigan's 1999 law criminalizing online communications deemed harmful to minors in Cyberspace v. Engler (1999). Like ongoing litigation over federal laws, the battle over state cyber porn law is far from over. Many legislatures are looking expectantly to the Supreme Court's 2002 decision on Internet filters before pursuing further legislation of their own. And still other states are trying new strategies, including more aggressive legislation that would put pressure on Internet service providers (ISPs) to supervise their customers: under a new Pennsylvania law enacted in 2002, owners and operators of ISPs will be responsible for blocking access to child pornography with high fines and prison sentences for violators. Ongoing action and controversy is likely in this area of law for the foreseeable future. Additional Resources Constitutional Amendments: 1789 to the Present. Kris E. Palmer, ed., Gale Group, 2000. Cyber Liberties. American Civil Liberties Union Website. Available hmcl.html. at http://www.aclu.org/issues/cyber/hmcl.html. Petitioner's Brief, Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition. U.S. Department of Justice, 2000. Available at http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2000/3mer/2mer/2000-0795.me... . State Internet Laws Face a Different Constitutional Challenge. Kaplan, Carl S., The New York Times, July 2, 1999. U. S. Supreme Court Considering Law on 'Virtual Child Porn.' Kleder, Martha, Culture and Family Institute. Available at http://cultureandfamily.org/report/2001-11-08/n_childporn.s... West Encyclopedia of American Law. Theresa J. Lippert, ed., West Group, 1998. Organizations American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 USA Phone: (212) 549-2500 URL: http://www.aclu.org Primary Contact: Nadine Strossen, President American Family Association P.O. Box 2440 Tupelo, MS 38803 USA Phone: (662) 844-5036 Fax: (662) 842-7798 URL: http://www.afa.net Primary Contact: Donald E. Wildmon, President Federal Bureau of Investigation J. Edgar Hoover Building, 935 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20535-0001 USA Phone: (202) 324-3000 URL: http://www.fbi.gov Primary Contact: Robert S. Mueller III, Director
|
|
|
|
|
dreday3000
May 30, 2008, 3:14 PM
Post #33 of 44
(5920 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 15, 2006
Posts: 566
|
Hey Jung, I bumped into Porter last weekend and he mentioned that in the future it MAY be possible that developers may get paid to put up new routes. Sounded like a pipe dream but IMO it would be a damn good thing. You know anything about this?
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
May 30, 2008, 10:03 PM
Post #34 of 44
(5898 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
dreday3000 wrote: Hey Jung, I bumped into Porter last weekend and he mentioned that in the future it MAY be possible that developers may get paid to put up new routes. Sounded like a pipe dream but IMO it would be a damn good thing. You know anything about this? Whaaaat? First I've heard. Sounds... weird.
|
|
|
|
|
stymingersfink
Jun 2, 2008, 1:45 AM
Post #35 of 44
(5796 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 12, 2003
Posts: 7250
|
angry wrote: j_ung wrote: I guess you read it. Too bad you don't understand it. I can copy and paste too. Background Internet PORNOGRAPHY is a battlefield in U.S. law. Since the explosion of PUBLIC INTEREST in the Net in the 1990s, the public, lawmakers, and the courts have argued over how to control online porn. Congress and state legislatures have passed several laws aimed at protecting children from exposure to socalled cyber porn, but the most sweeping of these have often failed to pass constitutional tests. The failure of these laws in court means this popular yet controversial medium faces few regulations. According to Forbes magazine, the online porn business in 2001 swelled to $1 billion a year, a significant part of a larger industry estimated to earn anywhere between $3 and $8 billion annually. In some respects, the issue continues a legal struggle many decades old. Opponents of pornography have long tried to control it on moral grounds, even as proponents sought to protect it as a valid expression of free speech. Traditionally, opponents won these battles. The Supreme Court established that OBSCENITY is not protected by the First Amendment, but the difficult question in each case has been defining what is and what is not obscene. Its rulings gradually shifted from a broad, forbidding position of the late 1950s to holding in the 1970s that communities could set their own standards for obscenity. Replayed in countless courtrooms, the tug-of-war between these camps has continued ever since. But the fight over cyber porn carries traditional arguments into new areas shaped by technology. A chief concern is that the Internet allows minors easy access to it through search engines—sometimes even accidentally. In 2001, U.S. SOLICITOR GENERAL Ted Olson contended that minors could stumble upon or intentionally enter 28,000 commercial porn websites. Also of worry is the Internet's ability to facilitate the illegal dissemination of child pornography. And the ubiquity of Internet access has raised new social problems by introducing pornography into new settings, such as public libraries and the workplace. Milestones in the development of Internet pornography law include the following. * The Supreme Court established that obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment in Roth v. United States (1957), declaring obscenity to be "utterly without redeeming social importance." * After subsequent cases showed the difficulty of finding a conclusive definition of obscenity, the Court restated its definition in Miller v. California (1973). It substituted a detailed three-part test ultimately to be used by each locality—the so-called "community standards" test. * The Court ruled that child pornography is not a form of expression protected under the constitution in New York v. Ferber (1982). It has also upheld a state law prohibiting the possession and viewing of child porn in Osborne v. Ohio (1990). * Seeking to control Internet porn, Congress first passed legislation in 1996. The Communications Decency Act (CDA) criminalized the dissemination over computer networks of obscene or indecent material to children.. Immediately blocked from enforcement by the courts, it was ruled unconstitutional under the First Amendment in 1997. * Seeking to update federal child pornography law for the Internet, Congress passed the Child Pornography Prevention Act (CPPA) of 1996. Among other features, the law criminalized any visual depiction that "appears to be" child pornography, including so-called virtual porn created by computer. After lower courts struck down provisions of the STATUTE, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, with a verdict expected in late 2002. * The Child Online Protection Act (COPA) of 1998 revived the CDA by modifying its scope. COPA criminalized the use of the World Wide Web to sell material harmful to minors. Ruled unconstitutional, the case remained on appeal before the Supreme Court with a decision expected by summer 2002. * The Protection of Children from Sexual Predators Act of 1998 included Internet-specific provisions for reporting child pornography to authorities and prohibiting federal prisoners from being allowed unsupervised Internet usage. * Two federal laws regulate access to Internet pornography at libraries and schools, the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) and the Neighborhood Internet Protection Act. Together, they require so-called filtering software to be installed on computers in public schools and libraries as a condition for federal funding. Both laws were challenged in court in early 2002, with their outcome uncertain. As these federal cases suggest, recent outcomes have favored those who regard federal control of Internet pornography as CENSORSHIP. That does not mean the issues are settled, as indeed partisans on both sides of the issue eagerly anticipate forthcoming court decisions on major cases in 2002. Federal Restrictions on Cyber Porn Child Pornography Child pornography has long been treated severely under both federal and state law. Congress first addressed the issue with the Protection of Children Against Sexual Exploitation Act of 1977. Lawmakers later toughened restrictions in the Child Protection Act of 1984, the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act of 1988, and the Child Protection Restoration and Penalties Enhancement Act of 1990. In the 1990s, lawmakers twice passed legislation targeting child porn online. The first was the Child Pornography Prevention Act (CPPA) of 1996, designed both to close loopholes in existing federal child pornography law and address new technological issues by the following: * Criminalizing the act of knowingly possessing, selling, receiving, sending, or transmitting child pornography via the internet or e-mail. * Criminalizing so-called "virtual" depictions of child pornography, those that appear to involve minors and those created by computer graphics software. Lower federal courts split over the constitutionality of some provisions in the law, and an appeal in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition will be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2002. The Protection of Children from Sexual Predators Act of 1998 contains further anti-child porn provisions. Title II of the law contains the following provisions: * Provides for the prosecution of individuals for the production of child pornography if the visual depiction was produced with materials that have been mailed, shipped, or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, including by computer. * Tightens previous federal law by making it a criminal offense to possess for even one depiction of child pornography * Outlines responsibilities for Internet Service Providers in reporting child pornography to authorities * Increases federal criminal penalties for child pornography, which include fines and prison sentences ranging from 15 to 30 years Disseminating Cyber Porn to Minors Although several federal laws have sought to control Internet porn, none has specifically tried to forbid it. In large part this is a recognition of the legal protections pornography enjoyed toward the end of the twentieth century. CASE LAW has established that much pornography is protected speech under the First Amendment. Obscenity is not protected. However, as the Supreme Court's "community standards" doctrine acknowledges, communities measure obscenity differently: what is likely to be considered obscene by a jury in Utah is not guaranteed to similarly move a jury in New York. The difficulty of formulating one broad standard of obscenity for all communities is made even greater by the Internet's being a global network, available everywhere at once. Thus rather than trying to eliminate cyber porn, Congress has twice sought to protect children from exposure to it. These laws have yet to be enforced. Both wound up in court, where sections of each were ruled unconstitutional. Crucially, the fate of one law still remains as of 2002 on appeal. The Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996 was lawmakers' first attempt to regulate the availability of indecent and obscene material online to minors. The CDA prohibited the "knowing" dissemination of such material to minors over computer networks or telephone lines, establishing penalties for violations of up to five years IMPRISONMENT and fines of up to $250,000. But it quickly fell to a legal challenge brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and a coalition of major publishers. Bringing a traditional First Amendment case against censorship, they argued successfully that the law was too broad: in trying to protect kids, its prohibitions would have limited the speech of adults to a level suitable for children. After a special three-judge panel ruled against the law in Philadelphia in 1996, the Supreme Court by 7-2 vote in American Civil Liberties Union v. Reno (1997) held that the law unconstitutionally abridged FREEDOM OF SPEECH, and thus struck down key provisions. Seeking to draft a constitutionally viable law, Congress responded by passing the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) of 1998. More narrowly written, COPA took aim at commercial online porn sites that disseminate material to minors. And, anticipating constitutional objections, it mandated that criminal cases brought under it would be tried according to contemporary community standards. The law set stiff penalties of $150,000 for each day of violation and up to six months in prison. However, COPA suffered similar setbacks in court after the ACLU and several non-pornographic online websites successfully contested it, first in federal district court in Philadelphia and then before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit. As before with the CDA, the JUSTICE DEPARTMENT has continued to appeal; this time, it has argued that online porn is even more readily accessible to children and thus in need of urgent control. The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in late 2001 and was expected to rule on the case, Ashcroft v. ACLU, in summer 2002. If the Supreme Court reverses the two lower rulings, an enforceable COPA would represent a milestone in the evolution of Internet law. It would almost certainly open a flood of LITIGATION by opponents of pornography and pose new, difficult questions of JURISDICTION. But even if the Court finds the law unconstitutional, few legal observers believe this will be the last word. It is likely that legislators will continue to press forward to find other legal means to regulate the availability of online porn to minors. Filtering in Federally-funded Public Schools and Libraries In another attempt to protect children from exposure to cyber porn, Congress passed two laws in 2000 aimed at public schools and public libraries. Federally-funded institutions of this kind are required to put in effect Internet safety policies in order to continue qualifying for federal support. They must install socalled Internet filters on their public computers: these are commercially-available software programs, with names like Cyber Patrol and Net Nanny, that intercept and block pornographic materials. Under the terms of the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) and the Neighborhood Internet Protection Act (NCIPA), filters had to be in place by 2001, although libraries were ultimately given extra time to comply. Proving as controversial as the CDA and COPA, the laws have been challenged by the American Library Association and civil liberties groups. They have argued that the law will result in censorship because it relies upon inaccurate technology, citing EVIDENCE that some software filters erroneously block non-pornographic material, too. Oral TESTIMONY on the case was heard in spring 2002, with a verdict expected later in the year. State Laws State laws on Internet pornography have evolved rapidly. Prior to the rise in popularity of the Internet, most states already had laws on the books regulating age limits for purchasing pornography as well as statutes criminalizing child pornography. Many legislatures saw a need for legislation to respond to the vicissitudes of new technology. Between 1995 and 2002, nearly two dozen states considered bills that would control in some fashion access to Internet pornography. More than a dozen states enacted them. Closely resembling federal law, state laws break down into two broad categories. In the first and broadest, the laws forbid the access by minors to what the laws usually call "harmful materials"— verbal and visual information that includes, but is not necessarily limited to, pornography. Sometimes these laws target "indecent" material; for example, Oklahoma and New York law each criminalize the transmission of indecent materials to minors. Most state laws on transmission of indecent materials target exposure in public schools and libraries. Their remedy is to require, and in at least one case merely recommend, that these facilities install socalled Internet filtering software on their computers. At least six states have passed such laws: Arizona, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, South Carolina, and Tennessee. Twenty more states were considering such legislation in 2001-2002. Like federal law, a second category of state law targets virtual child pornography. Aggressively defining this new category of criminal offense, these laws treat so-called virtual porn as severely as actual photography of minors. In the mid-1990s, for instance, both Kansas and Montana expanded their existing statutes to prohibit transmission and possession of such images, while other states such as Missouri and Minnesota enacted new laws. In early court challenges, much more sweeping state cyber porn laws failed to pass constitutional tests in three states. In American Library Association v. Pataki (1997), a federal judge blocked enforcement of a New York statue prohibiting online indecency that had been modeled on the federal Communications Decency Act, ruling that it violated the Constitution's Commerce Clause. In ACLU v. Johnson (1998), a federal district judge ruled on First Amendment grounds that New Mexico could not enforce a law criminalizing the online dissemination of any expression that involves nudity or sexual content. And in another victory for First Amendment advocates, a federal judge blocked Michigan's 1999 law criminalizing online communications deemed harmful to minors in Cyberspace v. Engler (1999). Like ongoing litigation over federal laws, the battle over state cyber porn law is far from over. Many legislatures are looking expectantly to the Supreme Court's 2002 decision on Internet filters before pursuing further legislation of their own. And still other states are trying new strategies, including more aggressive legislation that would put pressure on Internet service providers (ISPs) to supervise their customers: under a new Pennsylvania law enacted in 2002, owners and operators of ISPs will be responsible for blocking access to child pornography with high fines and prison sentences for violators. Ongoing action and controversy is likely in this area of law for the foreseeable future. Additional Resources Constitutional Amendments: 1789 to the Present. Kris E. Palmer, ed., Gale Group, 2000. Cyber Liberties. American Civil Liberties Union Website. Available hmcl.html. at http://www.aclu.org/issues/cyber/hmcl.html. Petitioner's Brief, Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition. U.S. Department of Justice, 2000. Available at http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2000/3mer/2mer/2000-0795.me... . State Internet Laws Face a Different Constitutional Challenge. Kaplan, Carl S., The New York Times, July 2, 1999. U. S. Supreme Court Considering Law on 'Virtual Child Porn.' Kleder, Martha, Culture and Family Institute. Available at http://cultureandfamily.org/report/2001-11-08/n_childporn.s... West Encyclopedia of American Law. Theresa J. Lippert, ed., West Group, 1998. Organizations American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 USA Phone: (212) 549-2500 URL: http://www.aclu.org Primary Contact: Nadine Strossen, President American Family Association P.O. Box 2440 Tupelo, MS 38803 USA Phone: (662) 844-5036 Fax: (662) 842-7798 URL: http://www.afa.net Primary Contact: Donald E. Wildmon, President Federal Bureau of Investigation J. Edgar Hoover Building, 935 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20535-0001 USA Phone: (202) 324-3000 URL: http://www.fbi.gov Primary Contact: Robert S. Mueller III, Director ...^ and I'm not reading that either^
|
|
|
|
|
hopperhopper
Jun 2, 2008, 4:31 PM
Post #36 of 44
(5764 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 29, 2007
Posts: 475
|
majid_sabet wrote: Public Law 88-577 (16 U.S. C. 1131-1136) 88th Congress, Second Session September 3, 1964 ad nauseum obnoxiousness at its pinnacle
|
|
|
|
|
roninthorne
Jun 4, 2008, 1:20 AM
Post #37 of 44
(5697 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 27, 2002
Posts: 659
|
krusher4 wrote: So every time climbing gets inconvenient we're just putting in bolts now? How about climbing somewhere else or hiring a climbing wall for the weekend? Soooo, krusher4... I suppose you're walking to the crag in your hemp loincloth and woven rope sandals to free-solo chalklessly because you are obviously so dead-set against technologically overcoming inconvenience... No doubt you skipped your vaccines and dental care so you can die at age 35, as well... Wake up... it's out of fashion to be a Luddite. You're posting on an internet site that is part of an elitist sports culture with an enormous carbon footprint, one which depends on one of the most environmentally-impactive metals on earth (aluminum) and is supported by ads for people whose corporations fly jetliners, hire limos, and build dams, bridges, and superhighways. However- evanwish- hire a carpenter or find some climber at your local shop who will do the deed for a couple of bucks and beers. Nothing sucks worse than a poorly-placed bolt (except clipping into one run way to hell and gone out from your last piece), and there is no easier way to screw up setting a bolt than hand-drilling your first one. You wanna learn how to bolt for the future and keep you ethics and morals intact? Go find a bunch of huge debris boulders at the edge of some blasted roadcut and drill to your heart's content. But for anchors, for repeated use and safety, get someone who has experience to do the job. Just my 2 cents worth, after 20 yrs, one hand and two power drills, several hundred bolts, and a lot of practice. And fellas... reno, j_ung, angry, etc... not that it was unwarranted, but you hijacked the man's simple question thread for taking swipes at someone almost everyone on here knows is an idiot... and if they had any doubts before, I think the question is settled now. (p.s. angry- loved the thread about disassembling the rope for rappelling... actually laughed beer out of my nose...)
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jun 10, 2008, 9:49 PM
Post #38 of 44
(5495 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
k.l.k wrote: The Wilderness Act was passed (and signed) in 1964. It applies to some federal lands, It applies to designated wilderness areas. Simple as that. The interpretation is 'no power tools in wilderness areas' Exceptions are routinely made for fire fighting, law enforcement, SAR operations and ferrying VIPs to wilderness trout lakes! Sneaky assed climbers have their own form of exceptions. DMT
(This post was edited by dingus on Jun 10, 2008, 9:50 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
bender
Jun 20, 2008, 4:42 AM
Post #39 of 44
(5186 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 23, 2002
Posts: 188
|
no 3/8th bolt installs for rookies make em 1/2in; their harder to screw up torquing em down
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Jun 20, 2008, 7:45 PM
Post #40 of 44
(5140 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
stymingersfink wrote: angry wrote: j_ung wrote: I guess you read it. Too bad you don't understand it. I can copy and paste too. Background Internet PORNOGRAPHY is a battlefield in U.S. law. Since the explosion of PUBLIC INTEREST in the Net in the 1990s, the public, lawmakers, and the courts have argued over how to control online porn. Congress and state legislatures have passed several laws aimed at protecting children from exposure to socalled cyber porn, but the most sweeping of these have often failed to pass constitutional tests. The failure of these laws in court means this popular yet controversial medium faces few regulations. According to Forbes magazine, the online porn business in 2001 swelled to $1 billion a year, a significant part of a larger industry estimated to earn anywhere between $3 and $8 billion annually. In some respects, the issue continues a legal struggle many decades old. Opponents of pornography have long tried to control it on moral grounds, even as proponents sought to protect it as a valid expression of free speech. Traditionally, opponents won these battles. The Supreme Court established that OBSCENITY is not protected by the First Amendment, but the difficult question in each case has been defining what is and what is not obscene. Its rulings gradually shifted from a broad, forbidding position of the late 1950s to holding in the 1970s that communities could set their own standards for obscenity. Replayed in countless courtrooms, the tug-of-war between these camps has continued ever since. But the fight over cyber porn carries traditional arguments into new areas shaped by technology. A chief concern is that the Internet allows minors easy access to it through search engines—sometimes even accidentally. In 2001, U.S. SOLICITOR GENERAL Ted Olson contended that minors could stumble upon or intentionally enter 28,000 commercial porn websites. Also of worry is the Internet's ability to facilitate the illegal dissemination of child pornography. And the ubiquity of Internet access has raised new social problems by introducing pornography into new settings, such as public libraries and the workplace. Milestones in the development of Internet pornography law include the following. * The Supreme Court established that obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment in Roth v. United States (1957), declaring obscenity to be "utterly without redeeming social importance." * After subsequent cases showed the difficulty of finding a conclusive definition of obscenity, the Court restated its definition in Miller v. California (1973). It substituted a detailed three-part test ultimately to be used by each locality—the so-called "community standards" test. * The Court ruled that child pornography is not a form of expression protected under the constitution in New York v. Ferber (1982). It has also upheld a state law prohibiting the possession and viewing of child porn in Osborne v. Ohio (1990). * Seeking to control Internet porn, Congress first passed legislation in 1996. The Communications Decency Act (CDA) criminalized the dissemination over computer networks of obscene or indecent material to children.. Immediately blocked from enforcement by the courts, it was ruled unconstitutional under the First Amendment in 1997. * Seeking to update federal child pornography law for the Internet, Congress passed the Child Pornography Prevention Act (CPPA) of 1996. Among other features, the law criminalized any visual depiction that "appears to be" child pornography, including so-called virtual porn created by computer. After lower courts struck down provisions of the STATUTE, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, with a verdict expected in late 2002. * The Child Online Protection Act (COPA) of 1998 revived the CDA by modifying its scope. COPA criminalized the use of the World Wide Web to sell material harmful to minors. Ruled unconstitutional, the case remained on appeal before the Supreme Court with a decision expected by summer 2002. * The Protection of Children from Sexual Predators Act of 1998 included Internet-specific provisions for reporting child pornography to authorities and prohibiting federal prisoners from being allowed unsupervised Internet usage. * Two federal laws regulate access to Internet pornography at libraries and schools, the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) and the Neighborhood Internet Protection Act. Together, they require so-called filtering software to be installed on computers in public schools and libraries as a condition for federal funding. Both laws were challenged in court in early 2002, with their outcome uncertain. As these federal cases suggest, recent outcomes have favored those who regard federal control of Internet pornography as CENSORSHIP. That does not mean the issues are settled, as indeed partisans on both sides of the issue eagerly anticipate forthcoming court decisions on major cases in 2002. Federal Restrictions on Cyber Porn Child Pornography Child pornography has long been treated severely under both federal and state law. Congress first addressed the issue with the Protection of Children Against Sexual Exploitation Act of 1977. Lawmakers later toughened restrictions in the Child Protection Act of 1984, the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act of 1988, and the Child Protection Restoration and Penalties Enhancement Act of 1990. In the 1990s, lawmakers twice passed legislation targeting child porn online. The first was the Child Pornography Prevention Act (CPPA) of 1996, designed both to close loopholes in existing federal child pornography law and address new technological issues by the following: * Criminalizing the act of knowingly possessing, selling, receiving, sending, or transmitting child pornography via the internet or e-mail. * Criminalizing so-called "virtual" depictions of child pornography, those that appear to involve minors and those created by computer graphics software. Lower federal courts split over the constitutionality of some provisions in the law, and an appeal in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition will be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2002. The Protection of Children from Sexual Predators Act of 1998 contains further anti-child porn provisions. Title II of the law contains the following provisions: * Provides for the prosecution of individuals for the production of child pornography if the visual depiction was produced with materials that have been mailed, shipped, or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, including by computer. * Tightens previous federal law by making it a criminal offense to possess for even one depiction of child pornography * Outlines responsibilities for Internet Service Providers in reporting child pornography to authorities * Increases federal criminal penalties for child pornography, which include fines and prison sentences ranging from 15 to 30 years Disseminating Cyber Porn to Minors Although several federal laws have sought to control Internet porn, none has specifically tried to forbid it. In large part this is a recognition of the legal protections pornography enjoyed toward the end of the twentieth century. CASE LAW has established that much pornography is protected speech under the First Amendment. Obscenity is not protected. However, as the Supreme Court's "community standards" doctrine acknowledges, communities measure obscenity differently: what is likely to be considered obscene by a jury in Utah is not guaranteed to similarly move a jury in New York. The difficulty of formulating one broad standard of obscenity for all communities is made even greater by the Internet's being a global network, available everywhere at once. Thus rather than trying to eliminate cyber porn, Congress has twice sought to protect children from exposure to it. These laws have yet to be enforced. Both wound up in court, where sections of each were ruled unconstitutional. Crucially, the fate of one law still remains as of 2002 on appeal. The Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996 was lawmakers' first attempt to regulate the availability of indecent and obscene material online to minors. The CDA prohibited the "knowing" dissemination of such material to minors over computer networks or telephone lines, establishing penalties for violations of up to five years IMPRISONMENT and fines of up to $250,000. But it quickly fell to a legal challenge brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and a coalition of major publishers. Bringing a traditional First Amendment case against censorship, they argued successfully that the law was too broad: in trying to protect kids, its prohibitions would have limited the speech of adults to a level suitable for children. After a special three-judge panel ruled against the law in Philadelphia in 1996, the Supreme Court by 7-2 vote in American Civil Liberties Union v. Reno (1997) held that the law unconstitutionally abridged FREEDOM OF SPEECH, and thus struck down key provisions. Seeking to draft a constitutionally viable law, Congress responded by passing the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) of 1998. More narrowly written, COPA took aim at commercial online porn sites that disseminate material to minors. And, anticipating constitutional objections, it mandated that criminal cases brought under it would be tried according to contemporary community standards. The law set stiff penalties of $150,000 for each day of violation and up to six months in prison. However, COPA suffered similar setbacks in court after the ACLU and several non-pornographic online websites successfully contested it, first in federal district court in Philadelphia and then before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit. As before with the CDA, the JUSTICE DEPARTMENT has continued to appeal; this time, it has argued that online porn is even more readily accessible to children and thus in need of urgent control. The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in late 2001 and was expected to rule on the case, Ashcroft v. ACLU, in summer 2002. If the Supreme Court reverses the two lower rulings, an enforceable COPA would represent a milestone in the evolution of Internet law. It would almost certainly open a flood of LITIGATION by opponents of pornography and pose new, difficult questions of JURISDICTION. But even if the Court finds the law unconstitutional, few legal observers believe this will be the last word. It is likely that legislators will continue to press forward to find other legal means to regulate the availability of online porn to minors. Filtering in Federally-funded Public Schools and Libraries In another attempt to protect children from exposure to cyber porn, Congress passed two laws in 2000 aimed at public schools and public libraries. Federally-funded institutions of this kind are required to put in effect Internet safety policies in order to continue qualifying for federal support. They must install socalled Internet filters on their public computers: these are commercially-available software programs, with names like Cyber Patrol and Net Nanny, that intercept and block pornographic materials. Under the terms of the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) and the Neighborhood Internet Protection Act (NCIPA), filters had to be in place by 2001, although libraries were ultimately given extra time to comply. Proving as controversial as the CDA and COPA, the laws have been challenged by the American Library Association and civil liberties groups. They have argued that the law will result in censorship because it relies upon inaccurate technology, citing EVIDENCE that some software filters erroneously block non-pornographic material, too. Oral TESTIMONY on the case was heard in spring 2002, with a verdict expected later in the year. State Laws State laws on Internet pornography have evolved rapidly. Prior to the rise in popularity of the Internet, most states already had laws on the books regulating age limits for purchasing pornography as well as statutes criminalizing child pornography. Many legislatures saw a need for legislation to respond to the vicissitudes of new technology. Between 1995 and 2002, nearly two dozen states considered bills that would control in some fashion access to Internet pornography. More than a dozen states enacted them. Closely resembling federal law, state laws break down into two broad categories. In the first and broadest, the laws forbid the access by minors to what the laws usually call "harmful materials"— verbal and visual information that includes, but is not necessarily limited to, pornography. Sometimes these laws target "indecent" material; for example, Oklahoma and New York law each criminalize the transmission of indecent materials to minors. Most state laws on transmission of indecent materials target exposure in public schools and libraries. Their remedy is to require, and in at least one case merely recommend, that these facilities install socalled Internet filtering software on their computers. At least six states have passed such laws: Arizona, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, South Carolina, and Tennessee. Twenty more states were considering such legislation in 2001-2002. Like federal law, a second category of state law targets virtual child pornography. Aggressively defining this new category of criminal offense, these laws treat so-called virtual porn as severely as actual photography of minors. In the mid-1990s, for instance, both Kansas and Montana expanded their existing statutes to prohibit transmission and possession of such images, while other states such as Missouri and Minnesota enacted new laws. In early court challenges, much more sweeping state cyber porn laws failed to pass constitutional tests in three states. In American Library Association v. Pataki (1997), a federal judge blocked enforcement of a New York statue prohibiting online indecency that had been modeled on the federal Communications Decency Act, ruling that it violated the Constitution's Commerce Clause. In ACLU v. Johnson (1998), a federal district judge ruled on First Amendment grounds that New Mexico could not enforce a law criminalizing the online dissemination of any expression that involves nudity or sexual content. And in another victory for First Amendment advocates, a federal judge blocked Michigan's 1999 law criminalizing online communications deemed harmful to minors in Cyberspace v. Engler (1999). Like ongoing litigation over federal laws, the battle over state cyber porn law is far from over. Many legislatures are looking expectantly to the Supreme Court's 2002 decision on Internet filters before pursuing further legislation of their own. And still other states are trying new strategies, including more aggressive legislation that would put pressure on Internet service providers (ISPs) to supervise their customers: under a new Pennsylvania law enacted in 2002, owners and operators of ISPs will be responsible for blocking access to child pornography with high fines and prison sentences for violators. Ongoing action and controversy is likely in this area of law for the foreseeable future. Additional Resources Constitutional Amendments: 1789 to the Present. Kris E. Palmer, ed., Gale Group, 2000. Cyber Liberties. American Civil Liberties Union Website. Available hmcl.html. at http://www.aclu.org/issues/cyber/hmcl.html. Petitioner's Brief, Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition. U.S. Department of Justice, 2000. Available at http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2000/3mer/2mer/2000-0795.me... . State Internet Laws Face a Different Constitutional Challenge. Kaplan, Carl S., The New York Times, July 2, 1999. U. S. Supreme Court Considering Law on 'Virtual Child Porn.' Kleder, Martha, Culture and Family Institute. Available at http://cultureandfamily.org/report/2001-11-08/n_childporn.s... West Encyclopedia of American Law. Theresa J. Lippert, ed., West Group, 1998. Organizations American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 USA Phone: (212) 549-2500 URL: http://www.aclu.org Primary Contact: Nadine Strossen, President American Family Association P.O. Box 2440 Tupelo, MS 38803 USA Phone: (662) 844-5036 Fax: (662) 842-7798 URL: http://www.afa.net Primary Contact: Donald E. Wildmon, President Federal Bureau of Investigation J. Edgar Hoover Building, 935 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20535-0001 USA Phone: (202) 324-3000 URL: http://www.fbi.gov Primary Contact: Robert S. Mueller III, Director ...^ and I'm not reading that either^ I did read a little bit of it. Not sure why. The odd thing is that I didn't read any of Majid's post, which is, for reference, noted below.
majid_sabet wrote: Public Law 88-577 (16 U.S. C. 1131-1136) 88th Congress, Second Session September 3, 1964 AN ACT To establish a National Wilderness Preservation System for the permanent good of the whole people, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SHORT TITLE Section 1. This Act may be cited as the "Wilderness Act". WILDERNESS SYSTEM ESTABLISHED STATEMENT OF POLICY Sec. 2. (a) In order to assure that an increasing population, accompanied by expanding settlement and growing mechanization, does not occupy and modify all areas within the United States and its possessions, leaving no lands designated for preservation and protection in their natural condition, it is hereby declared to be the policy of the Congress to secure for the American people of present and future generations the benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness. For this purpose there is hereby established a National Wilderness Preservation System to be composed of federally owned areas designated by Congress as "wilderness areas", and these shall be administered for the use and enjoyment of the American people in such manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use as wilderness, and so as to provide for the protection of these areas, the preservation of their wilderness character, and for the gathering and dissemination of information regarding their use and enjoyment as wilderness; and no Federal lands shall be designated as "wilderness areas" except as provided for in this Act or by a subsequent Act. (b) The inclusion of an area in the National Wilderness Preservation System notwithstanding, the area shall continue to be managed by the Department and agency having jurisdiction thereover immediately before its inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System unless otherwise provided by Act of Congress. No appropriation shall be available for the payment of expenses or salaries for the administration of the National Wilderness Preservation System as a separate unit nor shall any appropriations be available for additional personnel stated as being required solely for the purpose of managing or administering areas solely because they are included within the National Wilderness Preservation System. DEFINITION OF WILDERNESS (c) A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value. NATIONAL WILDERNESS PRESERVATION SYSTEM -- EXTENT OF SYSTEM Sec. 3. (a) All areas within the national forests classified at least 30 days before September 30, 1964, by the Secretary of Agriculture or the Chief of the Forest Service as "wilderness", "wild", or "canoe" are hereby designated as wilderness areas. The Secretary of Agriculture shall -- (1) Within one year after September 30, 1964, file a map and legal description of each wilderness area with the Interior and Insular Affairs Committees of the United States Senate and the House of Representatives, and such descriptions shall have the same force and effect as if included in this Act: Provided, however, That correction of clerical and typographical errors in such legal descriptions and maps may be made. (2) Maintain, available to the public, records pertaining to said wilderness areas, including maps and legal descriptions, copies of regulations governing them, copies of public notices of, and reports submitted to Congress regarding pending additions, eliminations, or modifications. Maps, legal descriptions, and regulations pertaining to wilderness areas within their respective jurisdictions also shall be available to the public in the offices of regional foresters, national forest supervisors, and forest rangers. (b) The Secretary of Agriculture shall, within ten years after September 30, 1964, review, as to its suitability or nonsuitability for preservation as wilderness, each area in the national forests classified on September 3, 1964, by the Secretary of Agriculture or the Chief of the Forest Service as "primitive" and report his findings to the President. The President shall advise the United States Senate and House of Representatives of his recommendations with respect to the designation as "wilderness" or other reclassification of each area on which review has been completed, together with maps and a definition of boundaries. Such advice shall be given with respect to not less than one-third of all the areas now classified as "primitive" within three years after September 3, 1964, not less than two-thirds within seven years after September 3, 1964, and the remaining areas within ten years after September 3, 1964. Each recommendation of the President for designation as "wilderness" shall become effective only if so provided by an Act of Congress. Areas classified as "primitive" on September 3, 1964, shall continue to be administered under the rules and regulations affecting such areas on September 3, 1964, until Congress has determined otherwise. Any such area may be increased in size by the President at the time he submits his recommendation to the Congress by not more than five thousand acres with no more than one thousand two hundred and eighty acres of such increase in any one compact unit; if it is proposed to increase the size of any such area by more than five thousand acres or by more than one thousand two hundred and eighty acres in any one compact unit the increase in size shall not become effective until acted upon by Congress. Nothing herein contained shall limit the President in proposing, as part of his recommendations to Congress, the alteration of existing boundaries of primitive areas or recommending the addition of any contiguous area of national forest lands predominantly of wilderness value. Not withstanding any other provisions of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture may complete his review and delete such area as may be necessary, but not to exceed seven thousand acres, from the southern tip of the Gore Range-Eagles Nest Primitive Area, Colorado, if the Secretary determines that such action is in the public interest. (c) Within ten years after September 3, 1964, the Secretary of the Interior shall review every roadless area of five thousand contiguous acres or more in the national parks, monuments and other units of the national park system and every such area of, and every roadless island within, the national wildlife refuges and game ranges, under his jurisdiction on September 3, 1964, and shall report to the President his recommendation as to the suitability or nonsuitability of each such area or island for preservation as wilderness. The President shall advise the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives of his recommendation with respect to the designation as wilderness of each such area or island on which review has been completed, together with a map thereof and a definition of its boundaries. Such advice shall be given with respect to not less than one-third of the areas and islands to be reviewed under this subsection within three years after September 3, 1964, not less than two-thirds within seven years of September 3, 1964, and the remainder within ten years of September 3, 1964. A recommendation of the President for designation as wilderness shall become effective only if so provided by an Act of Congress. Nothing contained herein shall, by implication or otherwise, be construed to lessen the present statutory authority of the Secretary of the Interior with respect to the maintenance of roadless areas within units of the national park system. (d) (1) The Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior shall, prior to submitting any recommendations to the President with respect to the suitability of any area for preservation as wilderness -- (A) give such public notice of the proposed action as they deem appropriate, including publication in the Federal Register and in a newspaper having general circulation in the area or areas in the vicinity of the affected land; (B) hold a public hearing or hearings at a location or locations convenient to the area affected. The hearings shall be announced through such means as the respective Secretaries involved deem appropriate, including notices in the Federal Register and in newspapers of general circulation in the area: Provided, That if the lands involved are located in more than one State, at least one hearing shall be held in each State in which a portion of the land lies; (C) at least thirty days before the date of a hearing advise the Governor of each State and the governing board of each county, or in Alaska the borough, in which the lands are located, and Federal departments and agencies concerned, and invite such officials and Federal agencies to submit their views on the proposed action at the hearing or by not later than thirty days following the date of the hearing. (2) Any views submitted to the appropriate Secretary under the provisions of (1) of this subsection with respect to any area shall be included with any recommendations to the President and to Congress with respect to such area. (e) Any modification or adjustment of boundaries of any wilderness area shall be recommended by the appropriate Secretary after public notice of such proposal and public hearing or hearings as provided on subsection (d) of this section. The proposed modification or adjustment shall then be recommended with map and description thereof to the President. The President shall advise the United States Senate and the House of Representatives of his recommendations with respect to such modification or adjustment and such recommendations shall become effective only on the same manner as provided for in subsections (b) and (c) of this section. USE OF WILDERNESS AREAS Sec. 4. (a) The purposes of this Act are hereby declared to be within and supplemental to the purposes for which national forests and units of the national park and national wildlife refuge systems are established and administered and -- (1) Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to be in interference with the purpose for which national forests are established as set forth in the Act of June 4, 1897 (30 Stat. 11), and the Multiple Use Sustained-Yield Act of June 12, 1960 (74 Stat. 215). (2) Nothing in this Act shall modify the restrictions and provisions of the Shipstead-Nolan Act (Public Law 539, Seventy-first Congress, July 10, 1930; 46 Stat. 1020),the Thye-Blatnik Act (Public Law 733, Eightieth Congress, June 22, 1948; 62 Stat. 568), and the Humphrey-Thye-Blatnik-Andersen Act (Public Law 607, Eighty-fourth Congress, June 22.1965; 70 Stat. 326), as applying to the Superior National Forest or the regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture. (3) Nothing in this Act shall modify the statutory authority under which units of the national park system are created. Further, the designation of any area of any park, monument, or other unit of the national park system as a wilderness area pursuant to this Act shall in no manner lower the standards evolved for the use and preservation of such park, monument, or other unit of the national park system in accordance with the Act of August 25, 1916, the statutory authority under which the area was created, or any other Act of Congress which might pertain to or affect such area, including, but not limited to, the Act of June 8, 1906 (34 Stat. 225; 16 U.S.C. 432 et seq.); section 3(2) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 796 (2) ); and the Act of August 21,1935 (49 Stat. 666; 16 U.S.C. 461 et seq.). (b) Except as otherwise provided in this Act, each agency administering any area designated as wilderness shall be responsible for preserving the wilderness character of the area and shall so administer such area for such other purposes for which it may have been established as also to preserve its wilderness character. Except as otherwise provided in this Act, wilderness areas shall be devoted to the public purposes of recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation, and historical use. PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN USES (c) Except as specifically provided for in this Act, and subject to existing private rights, there shall be no commercial enterprise and no permanent road within any wilderness area designated by this Act and, except as necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the purpose of this Act (including measures required in emergencies involving the health and safety of persons within the area), there shall be no temporary road, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of mechanical transport, and no structure or installation within any such area. SPECIAL PROVISIONS (d) The following special provisions are hereby made: (1) Within wilderness areas designated by this Act the use of aircraft or motorboats, where these uses have already become established, may be permitted to continue subject to such restrictions as the Secretary of Agriculture deems desirable. In addition, such measures may be taken as may be necessary in the control of fire, insects, and diseases, subject to such conditions as the Secretary deems desirable. (2) Nothing in this Act shall prevent within national forest wilderness areas any activity, including prospecting, for the purpose of gathering information about mineral or other resources, if such activity is carried on in a manner compatible with the preservation of the wilderness environment. Furthermore, in accordance with such program as the Secretary of the Interior shall develop and conduct in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, such areas shall be surveyed on a planned, recurring basis consistent with the concept of wilderness preservation by the Geological Survey and the Bureau of Mines to determine the mineral values, if any, that may be present; and the results of such surveys shall be made available to the public and submitted to the President and Congress. (3) Not withstanding any other provisions of this Act, until midnight December 31, 1983, the United States mining laws and all laws pertaining to mineral leasing shall, to the extent as applicable prior to September 3, 1964, extend to those national forest lands designated by this Act as "wilderness areas"; subject, however, to such reasonable regulations governing ingress and egress as may be prescribed by the Secretary of Agriculture consistent with the use of the land for mineral location and development and exploration, drilling, and production, and use of land for transmission lines, waterlines, telephone lines, or facilities necessary in exploring, drilling, producing, mining, and processing operations, including where essential the use of mechanized ground or air equipment and restoration as near as practicable of the surface of the land disturbed in performing prospecting, location, and , in oil and gas leasing, discovery work, exploration, drilling, and production, as soon as they have served their purpose. Mining locations lying within the boundaries of said wilderness areas shall be held and used solely for mining or processing operations and uses reasonably incident thereto; and hereafter, subject to valid existing rights, all patents issued under the mining laws of the United States affecting national forest lands designated by this Act as wilderness areas shall convey title to the mineral deposits within the claim, together with the right to cut and use so much of the mature timber therefrom as may be needed in the extraction, removal, and beneficiation of the mineral deposits, if needed timber is not otherwise reasonably available, and if the timber is cut under sound principles of forest management as defined by the national forest rules and regulations, but each such patent shall reserve to the United States all title in or to the surface of the lands and products thereof, and no use of the surface of the claim or the resources therefrom not reasonably required for carrying on mining or prospecting shall be allowed except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act: Provided, That, unless hereafter specifically authorized, no patent within wilderness areas designated by this Act shall issue after December 31, 1983, except for the valid claims existing on or before December 31, 1983. Mining claims located after September 3, 1964, within the boundaries of wilderness areas designated by this Act shall create no rights in excess of those rights which may be patented under the provisions of this subsection. Mineral leases, permits, and licenses covering lands within national forest wilderness areas designated by this Act shall contain such reasonable stipulations as may be prescribed by the Secretary of Agriculture for the protection of the wilderness character of the land consistent with the use of the land for the purposes for which they are leased, permitted, or licensed. Subject to valid rights then existing, effective January 1, 1984, the minerals in lands designated by this Act as wilderness areas are withdrawn from all forms of appropriation under the mining laws and from disposition under all laws pertaining to mineral leasing and all amendments thereto. (4) Within wilderness areas in the national forests designated by this Act, (1) the President may, within a specific area and in accordance with such regulations as he may deem desirable, authorize prospecting for water resources, the establishment and maintenance of reservoirs, water-conservation works, power projects, transmission lines, and other facilities needed in the public interest, including the road construction and maintenance essential to development and use thereof, upon his determination that such use or uses in the specific area will better serve the interests of the United States and the people thereof than will its denial; and (2) the grazing of livestock, where established prior to September 3, 1964, shall be permitted to continue subject to such reasonable regulations as are deemed necessary by the Secretary of Agriculture. (5) Other provisions of this Act to the contrary notwithstanding, the management of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area, formerly designated as the Superior, Little Indian Sioux, and Caribou Roadless Areas, in the Superior National Forest, Minnesota, shall be in accordance with the general purpose of maintaining, without unnecessary restrictions on other uses, including that of timber, the primitive character of the area, particularly in the vicinity of lakes, streams, and portages: Provided, That nothing in this Act shall preclude the continuance within the area of any already established use of motorboats. (6) Commercial services may be performed within the wilderness areas designated by this Act to the extent necessary for activities which are proper for realizing the recreational or other wilderness purposes of the areas. (7) Nothing in this Act shall constitute an express or implied claim or denial on the part of the Federal Government as to exemption from State water laws. (8) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as affecting the jurisdiction or responsibilities of the several States with respect to wildlife and fish in the national forests. STATE AND PRIVATE LANDS WITHIN WILDERNESS AREAS Sec. 5. (a) In any case where State-owned or privately owned land is completely surrounded by national forest lands within areas designated by this Act as wilderness, such State or private owner shall be given such rights as may be necessary to assure adequate access to such State-owned or privately owned land by such State or private owner and their successors in interest, or the State-owned land or privately owned land shall be exchanged for federally owned land in the same State of approximately equal value under authorities available to the Secretary of Agriculture: Provided, however, That the United States shall not transfer to a state or private owner any mineral interests unless the State or private owner relinquishes or causes to be relinquished to the United States the mineral interest in the surrounded land. (b) In any case where valid mining claims or other valid occupancies are wholly within a designated national forest wilderness area, the Secretary of Agriculture shall, by reasonable regulations consistent with the preservation of the area as wilderness, permit ingress and egress to such surrounded areas by means which have been or are being customarily enjoyed with respect to other such areas similarly situated. (c) Subject to the appropriation of funds by Congress, the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to acquire privately owned land within the perimeter of any area designated by this Act as wilderness if (1) the owner concurs in such acquisition or (2) the acquisition is specifically authorized by Congress. GIFTS, BEQUESTS, AND CONTRIBUTIONS Sec. 6. (a) The Secretary of Agriculture may accept gifts or bequests of land within wilderness areas designated by this Act for preservation as wilderness. The Secretary of Agriculture may also accept gifts or bequests of land adjacent to wilderness areas designated by this Act for preservation as wilderness if he has given sixty days advance notice thereof to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Land accepted by the Secretary of Agriculture under this section shall become part of the wilderness area involved. Regulations with regard to any such land may be in accordance with such agreements, consistent with the policy of this Act, as are made at the time of such gift, or such conditions, consistent with such policy, as may be included in, and accepted with, such bequest. (b) The Secretary of Agriculture or the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to accept private contributions and gifts to be used to further the purpose of this Act. ANNUAL REPORTS Sec. 7. At the opening of each session of Congress, the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior shall jointly report to the President for transmission to Congress on the status of the wilderness system, including a list and descriptions of the areas in the system, regulations in effect, and other pertinent information, together with any recommendations they may care to make. Approved September 3, 1964. _____________________ LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: HOUSE REPORTS: No. 1538 accompanying H.R. 9070 (Comm. on Interior & Insular Affairs) and No. 1829 (Comm. of Conference). SENATE REPORT: No. 109 (Comm. on Interior & Insular Affairs). CONGRESSIONAL RECORD: Vol. 109 (1963): Apr. 4, 8, considered in Senate. Apr. 9, considered and passed Senate. Vol. 110 (1964): July 28, considered in House July 30, considered and passed House, amended, in lieu of H. R. 9070. Aug. 20, House and Senate agreed to conference report. ===================================== read this http://www.wildwilderness.org/wi/bolting.htm and this http://www.americanalpineclub.org/pdfs/fixedcon.pdf my comments: in the middle ^^
|
|
|
|
|
chossmonkey
Jun 29, 2008, 3:10 AM
Post #41 of 44
(4816 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 1, 2003
Posts: 28414
|
Gmburns2000 wrote: my comments: in the middle ^^ I'm not scrolling back up.
|
|
|
|
|
shockabuku
Jun 29, 2008, 4:29 AM
Post #42 of 44
(4803 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4868
|
Is this to say sport climbing is like pornography? Hmmm....easy fun, relatively safe, yet maybe not as satisfying as the real thing....I'll have to think about that.
|
|
|
|
|
pipsqueekspire
Jun 29, 2008, 5:52 AM
Post #43 of 44
(4795 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 3, 2003
Posts: 222
|
I just want to point out that this is actually useful sound advice.... Clearly you are confused and think this is supertopo.com Next time spew only please.
k.l.k wrote: It's not brain science. You don't need a DVD tutorial or some geriatric Charles Manson look-alike to hold your hand. Just be certain that these aren't just "convenience" bolts, that there aren't land management issues and that you aren't bolting a local solo. ST has run several threads in the last year or so on drilling and hardware. Read them, including all the links/pdfs that were posted. Get yourself a hammer, a hand drill, and a bit or two. DON"T buy a Hilti or Bosch electric or one of those bonus gas-powered muscle drills. DO buy a carbide-tip bit. Mountaingear sells them if your local shop doesn't. Since you'll be sitting on your ass, almost any hammer will work, but if you can't fork for a yosemite hammer, get a decent ball-peen. Get a drinking straw, to blow dust out of the drill-hole. Toss in a crescent wrench or an open-end. You'll be drilling in granite (based on yr profile and the local areas), so 3/8 will be fine and you won't need glue-ins. Buy half-a-dozen bolts. Buy at least three good stainless ones that you pay a lot of money for, and at least three others identical in every way except that they were made in China and sold at your local fastener supply for dirt cheap. Go out in your yard or some scrappy shooting range with a granite boulder, and do at least three practice cheap bolts first. If you've never swung a hammer, you may need more practice bolts until you can swing accurately and keep the drill at a steady angle. Hold the drill fairly loosely, and turn slightly as you strike. How hard you strike and how much you turn and how hard you bear down on the drill and how long it takes all depend on the rock, the equipment, and yr skill level. At intervals, you may need to blow dust out of the hole, and the straw may come in handy. On the real anchor, choose your drill sites carefully. Will the hanger lay flat? Will other folks use this particular anchor? Where would they want it placed? Does the crack/line lean? Is there an eliminate face route three feet to the right? If so, maybe the anchor should be 18" off-plumb. Hang an unweighted rope if you are uncertain. You probably want the hangers to allow a standard runner, with biners, to reach over the edge with maybe a foot or more to spare, and ideally, one runner from each hanger, clipped together with two opposed biners, would produce a reasonably equalized clip. But a better drilling spot usually trumps clip convenience. Tap lightly on the drilling surface and listen to be sure that it isn't hollow or rotten. Since it is granite, pick the best location that has the finest, densest grain. Hammer down the strike zone before you start drilling so the odd protrusion won't make the bit bounce. Hold the drill fairly loosely, and turn slightly as you strike. How hard you strike and how long it takes depends on the rock, the equipment, and yr skill level. Drilling 3/8 in good granite can take a solid hour for someone who's done it before. Forty minutes would be quick. Thirty, suspicious. YMMV. Use yr good bolts on your real anchor. If you are using multi-piece expansion bolts, tighten down to the maker's specs. That's easier said than done. I tighten to easy handtight with a Craftsman open-end, 'cuz that's what was possible in the bad old days and I got used to it. A recent thread in the lab involved torque wrenches and The Machinist's Handbook and lots of armchair engineering. Generally speaking, over-tightening can be really bad. When you are finished, treat this anchor like any other you had built: test it carefully before putting someone at risk. If you are guiding n00bs, always take them up to the anchor as you set it up (assuming reasonable access); explain the difference between clean, hammered, and fixed anchors; and explain how to evaluate a fixed anchor so they don't come to think of yr crummy little stainless-steel buttplugz as part of the natural order of things. Tell the little monsters that if this were a "real" climb, you'd've led it and then walked back a long ways from the edge, to build friction, and picked a good spot to sit in and braced to bring up yr second. A few of them will listen and care.
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
Jun 29, 2008, 6:04 AM
Post #44 of 44
(4791 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
Gmburns2000 wrote: stymingersfink wrote: angry wrote: j_ung wrote: I guess you read it. Too bad you don't understand it. I can copy and paste too. Background Internet PORNOGRAPHY is a battlefield in U.S. law. Since the explosion of PUBLIC INTEREST in the Net in the 1990s, the public, lawmakers, and the courts have argued over how to control online porn. Congress and state legislatures have passed several laws aimed at protecting children from exposure to socalled cyber porn, but the most sweeping of these have often failed to pass constitutional tests. The failure of these laws in court means this popular yet controversial medium faces few regulations. According to Forbes magazine, the online porn business in 2001 swelled to $1 billion a year, a significant part of a larger industry estimated to earn anywhere between $3 and $8 billion annually. In some respects, the issue continues a legal struggle many decades old. Opponents of pornography have long tried to control it on moral grounds, even as proponents sought to protect it as a valid expression of free speech. Traditionally, opponents won these battles. The Supreme Court established that OBSCENITY is not protected by the First Amendment, but the difficult question in each case has been defining what is and what is not obscene. Its rulings gradually shifted from a broad, forbidding position of the late 1950s to holding in the 1970s that communities could set their own standards for obscenity. Replayed in countless courtrooms, the tug-of-war between these camps has continued ever since. But the fight over cyber porn carries traditional arguments into new areas shaped by technology. A chief concern is that the Internet allows minors easy access to it through search engines—sometimes even accidentally. In 2001, U.S. SOLICITOR GENERAL Ted Olson contended that minors could stumble upon or intentionally enter 28,000 commercial porn websites. Also of worry is the Internet's ability to facilitate the illegal dissemination of child pornography. And the ubiquity of Internet access has raised new social problems by introducing pornography into new settings, such as public libraries and the workplace. Milestones in the development of Internet pornography law include the following. * The Supreme Court established that obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment in Roth v. United States (1957), declaring obscenity to be "utterly without redeeming social importance." * After subsequent cases showed the difficulty of finding a conclusive definition of obscenity, the Court restated its definition in Miller v. California (1973). It substituted a detailed three-part test ultimately to be used by each locality—the so-called "community standards" test. * The Court ruled that child pornography is not a form of expression protected under the constitution in New York v. Ferber (1982). It has also upheld a state law prohibiting the possession and viewing of child porn in Osborne v. Ohio (1990). * Seeking to control Internet porn, Congress first passed legislation in 1996. The Communications Decency Act (CDA) criminalized the dissemination over computer networks of obscene or indecent material to children.. Immediately blocked from enforcement by the courts, it was ruled unconstitutional under the First Amendment in 1997. * Seeking to update federal child pornography law for the Internet, Congress passed the Child Pornography Prevention Act (CPPA) of 1996. Among other features, the law criminalized any visual depiction that "appears to be" child pornography, including so-called virtual porn created by computer. After lower courts struck down provisions of the STATUTE, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, with a verdict expected in late 2002. * The Child Online Protection Act (COPA) of 1998 revived the CDA by modifying its scope. COPA criminalized the use of the World Wide Web to sell material harmful to minors. Ruled unconstitutional, the case remained on appeal before the Supreme Court with a decision expected by summer 2002. * The Protection of Children from Sexual Predators Act of 1998 included Internet-specific provisions for reporting child pornography to authorities and prohibiting federal prisoners from being allowed unsupervised Internet usage. * Two federal laws regulate access to Internet pornography at libraries and schools, the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) and the Neighborhood Internet Protection Act. Together, they require so-called filtering software to be installed on computers in public schools and libraries as a condition for federal funding. Both laws were challenged in court in early 2002, with their outcome uncertain. As these federal cases suggest, recent outcomes have favored those who regard federal control of Internet pornography as CENSORSHIP. That does not mean the issues are settled, as indeed partisans on both sides of the issue eagerly anticipate forthcoming court decisions on major cases in 2002. Federal Restrictions on Cyber Porn Child Pornography Child pornography has long been treated severely under both federal and state law. Congress first addressed the issue with the Protection of Children Against Sexual Exploitation Act of 1977. Lawmakers later toughened restrictions in the Child Protection Act of 1984, the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act of 1988, and the Child Protection Restoration and Penalties Enhancement Act of 1990. In the 1990s, lawmakers twice passed legislation targeting child porn online. The first was the Child Pornography Prevention Act (CPPA) of 1996, designed both to close loopholes in existing federal child pornography law and address new technological issues by the following: * Criminalizing the act of knowingly possessing, selling, receiving, sending, or transmitting child pornography via the internet or e-mail. * Criminalizing so-called "virtual" depictions of child pornography, those that appear to involve minors and those created by computer graphics software. Lower federal courts split over the constitutionality of some provisions in the law, and an appeal in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition will be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2002. The Protection of Children from Sexual Predators Act of 1998 contains further anti-child porn provisions. Title II of the law contains the following provisions: * Provides for the prosecution of individuals for the production of child pornography if the visual depiction was produced with materials that have been mailed, shipped, or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, including by computer. * Tightens previous federal law by making it a criminal offense to possess for even one depiction of child pornography * Outlines responsibilities for Internet Service Providers in reporting child pornography to authorities * Increases federal criminal penalties for child pornography, which include fines and prison sentences ranging from 15 to 30 years Disseminating Cyber Porn to Minors Although several federal laws have sought to control Internet porn, none has specifically tried to forbid it. In large part this is a recognition of the legal protections pornography enjoyed toward the end of the twentieth century. CASE LAW has established that much pornography is protected speech under the First Amendment. Obscenity is not protected. However, as the Supreme Court's "community standards" doctrine acknowledges, communities measure obscenity differently: what is likely to be considered obscene by a jury in Utah is not guaranteed to similarly move a jury in New York. The difficulty of formulating one broad standard of obscenity for all communities is made even greater by the Internet's being a global network, available everywhere at once. Thus rather than trying to eliminate cyber porn, Congress has twice sought to protect children from exposure to it. These laws have yet to be enforced. Both wound up in court, where sections of each were ruled unconstitutional. Crucially, the fate of one law still remains as of 2002 on appeal. The Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996 was lawmakers' first attempt to regulate the availability of indecent and obscene material online to minors. The CDA prohibited the "knowing" dissemination of such material to minors over computer networks or telephone lines, establishing penalties for violations of up to five years IMPRISONMENT and fines of up to $250,000. But it quickly fell to a legal challenge brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and a coalition of major publishers. Bringing a traditional First Amendment case against censorship, they argued successfully that the law was too broad: in trying to protect kids, its prohibitions would have limited the speech of adults to a level suitable for children. After a special three-judge panel ruled against the law in Philadelphia in 1996, the Supreme Court by 7-2 vote in American Civil Liberties Union v. Reno (1997) held that the law unconstitutionally abridged FREEDOM OF SPEECH, and thus struck down key provisions. Seeking to draft a constitutionally viable law, Congress responded by passing the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) of 1998. More narrowly written, COPA took aim at commercial online porn sites that disseminate material to minors. And, anticipating constitutional objections, it mandated that criminal cases brought under it would be tried according to contemporary community standards. The law set stiff penalties of $150,000 for each day of violation and up to six months in prison. However, COPA suffered similar setbacks in court after the ACLU and several non-pornographic online websites successfully contested it, first in federal district court in Philadelphia and then before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit. As before with the CDA, the JUSTICE DEPARTMENT has continued to appeal; this time, it has argued that online porn is even more readily accessible to children and thus in need of urgent control. The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in late 2001 and was expected to rule on the case, Ashcroft v. ACLU, in summer 2002. If the Supreme Court reverses the two lower rulings, an enforceable COPA would represent a milestone in the evolution of Internet law. It would almost certainly open a flood of LITIGATION by opponents of pornography and pose new, difficult questions of JURISDICTION. But even if the Court finds the law unconstitutional, few legal observers believe this will be the last word. It is likely that legislators will continue to press forward to find other legal means to regulate the availability of online porn to minors. Filtering in Federally-funded Public Schools and Libraries In another attempt to protect children from exposure to cyber porn, Congress passed two laws in 2000 aimed at public schools and public libraries. Federally-funded institutions of this kind are required to put in effect Internet safety policies in order to continue qualifying for federal support. They must install socalled Internet filters on their public computers: these are commercially-available software programs, with names like Cyber Patrol and Net Nanny, that intercept and block pornographic materials. Under the terms of the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) and the Neighborhood Internet Protection Act (NCIPA), filters had to be in place by 2001, although libraries were ultimately given extra time to comply. Proving as controversial as the CDA and COPA, the laws have been challenged by the American Library Association and civil liberties groups. They have argued that the law will result in censorship because it relies upon inaccurate technology, citing EVIDENCE that some software filters erroneously block non-pornographic material, too. Oral TESTIMONY on the case was heard in spring 2002, with a verdict expected later in the year. State Laws State laws on Internet pornography have evolved rapidly. Prior to the rise in popularity of the Internet, most states already had laws on the books regulating age limits for purchasing pornography as well as statutes criminalizing child pornography. Many legislatures saw a need for legislation to respond to the vicissitudes of new technology. Between 1995 and 2002, nearly two dozen states considered bills that would control in some fashion access to Internet pornography. More than a dozen states enacted them. Closely resembling federal law, state laws break down into two broad categories. In the first and broadest, the laws forbid the access by minors to what the laws usually call "harmful materials"— verbal and visual information that includes, but is not necessarily limited to, pornography. Sometimes these laws target "indecent" material; for example, Oklahoma and New York law each criminalize the transmission of indecent materials to minors. Most state laws on transmission of indecent materials target exposure in public schools and libraries. Their remedy is to require, and in at least one case merely recommend, that these facilities install socalled Internet filtering software on their computers. At least six states have passed such laws: Arizona, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, South Carolina, and Tennessee. Twenty more states were considering such legislation in 2001-2002. Like federal law, a second category of state law targets virtual child pornography. Aggressively defining this new category of criminal offense, these laws treat so-called virtual porn as severely as actual photography of minors. In the mid-1990s, for instance, both Kansas and Montana expanded their existing statutes to prohibit transmission and possession of such images, while other states such as Missouri and Minnesota enacted new laws. In early court challenges, much more sweeping state cyber porn laws failed to pass constitutional tests in three states. In American Library Association v. Pataki (1997), a federal judge blocked enforcement of a New York statue prohibiting online indecency that had been modeled on the federal Communications Decency Act, ruling that it violated the Constitution's Commerce Clause. In ACLU v. Johnson (1998), a federal district judge ruled on First Amendment grounds that New Mexico could not enforce a law criminalizing the online dissemination of any expression that involves nudity or sexual content. And in another victory for First Amendment advocates, a federal judge blocked Michigan's 1999 law criminalizing online communications deemed harmful to minors in Cyberspace v. Engler (1999). Like ongoing litigation over federal laws, the battle over state cyber porn law is far from over. Many legislatures are looking expectantly to the Supreme Court's 2002 decision on Internet filters before pursuing further legislation of their own. And still other states are trying new strategies, including more aggressive legislation that would put pressure on Internet service providers (ISPs) to supervise their customers: under a new Pennsylvania law enacted in 2002, owners and operators of ISPs will be responsible for blocking access to child pornography with high fines and prison sentences for violators. Ongoing action and controversy is likely in this area of law for the foreseeable future. Additional Resources Constitutional Amendments: 1789 to the Present. Kris E. Palmer, ed., Gale Group, 2000. Cyber Liberties. American Civil Liberties Union Website. Available hmcl.html. at http://www.aclu.org/issues/cyber/hmcl.html. Petitioner's Brief, Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition. U.S. Department of Justice, 2000. Available at http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2000/3mer/2mer/2000-0795.me... . State Internet Laws Face a Different Constitutional Challenge. Kaplan, Carl S., The New York Times, July 2, 1999. U. S. Supreme Court Considering Law on 'Virtual Child Porn.' Kleder, Martha, Culture and Family Institute. Available at http://cultureandfamily.org/report/2001-11-08/n_childporn.s... West Encyclopedia of American Law. Theresa J. Lippert, ed., West Group, 1998. Organizations American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 USA Phone: (212) 549-2500 URL: http://www.aclu.org Primary Contact: Nadine Strossen, President American Family Association P.O. Box 2440 Tupelo, MS 38803 USA Phone: (662) 844-5036 Fax: (662) 842-7798 URL: http://www.afa.net Primary Contact: Donald E. Wildmon, President Federal Bureau of Investigation J. Edgar Hoover Building, 935 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20535-0001 USA Phone: (202) 324-3000 URL: http://www.fbi.gov Primary Contact: Robert S. Mueller III, Director ...^ and I'm not reading that either^ I did read a little bit of it. Not sure why. The odd thing is that I didn't read any of Majid's post, which is, for reference, noted below. majid_sabet wrote: Public Law 88-577 (16 U.S. C. 1131-1136) 88th Congress, Second Session September 3, 1964 AN ACT To establish a National Wilderness Preservation System for the permanent good of the whole people, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SHORT TITLE Section 1. This Act may be cited as the "Wilderness Act". WILDERNESS SYSTEM ESTABLISHED STATEMENT OF POLICY Sec. 2. (a) In order to assure that an increasing population, accompanied by expanding settlement and growing mechanization, does not occupy and modify all areas within the United States and its possessions, leaving no lands designated for preservation and protection in their natural condition, it is hereby declared to be the policy of the Congress to secure for the American people of present and future generations the benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness. For this purpose there is hereby established a National Wilderness Preservation System to be composed of federally owned areas designated by Congress as "wilderness areas", and these shall be administered for the use and enjoyment of the American people in such manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use as wilderness, and so as to provide for the protection of these areas, the preservation of their wilderness character, and for the gathering and dissemination of information regarding their use and enjoyment as wilderness; and no Federal lands shall be designated as "wilderness areas" except as provided for in this Act or by a subsequent Act. (b) The inclusion of an area in the National Wilderness Preservation System notwithstanding, the area shall continue to be managed by the Department and agency having jurisdiction thereover immediately before its inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System unless otherwise provided by Act of Congress. No appropriation shall be available for the payment of expenses or salaries for the administration of the National Wilderness Preservation System as a separate unit nor shall any appropriations be available for additional personnel stated as being required solely for the purpose of managing or administering areas solely because they are included within the National Wilderness Preservation System. DEFINITION OF WILDERNESS (c) A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value. NATIONAL WILDERNESS PRESERVATION SYSTEM -- EXTENT OF SYSTEM Sec. 3. (a) All areas within the national forests classified at least 30 days before September 30, 1964, by the Secretary of Agriculture or the Chief of the Forest Service as "wilderness", "wild", or "canoe" are hereby designated as wilderness areas. The Secretary of Agriculture shall -- (1) Within one year after September 30, 1964, file a map and legal description of each wilderness area with the Interior and Insular Affairs Committees of the United States Senate and the House of Representatives, and such descriptions shall have the same force and effect as if included in this Act: Provided, however, That correction of clerical and typographical errors in such legal descriptions and maps may be made. (2) Maintain, available to the public, records pertaining to said wilderness areas, including maps and legal descriptions, copies of regulations governing them, copies of public notices of, and reports submitted to Congress regarding pending additions, eliminations, or modifications. Maps, legal descriptions, and regulations pertaining to wilderness areas within their respective jurisdictions also shall be available to the public in the offices of regional foresters, national forest supervisors, and forest rangers. (b) The Secretary of Agriculture shall, within ten years after September 30, 1964, review, as to its suitability or nonsuitability for preservation as wilderness, each area in the national forests classified on September 3, 1964, by the Secretary of Agriculture or the Chief of the Forest Service as "primitive" and report his findings to the President. The President shall advise the United States Senate and House of Representatives of his recommendations with respect to the designation as "wilderness" or other reclassification of each area on which review has been completed, together with maps and a definition of boundaries. Such advice shall be given with respect to not less than one-third of all the areas now classified as "primitive" within three years after September 3, 1964, not less than two-thirds within seven years after September 3, 1964, and the remaining areas within ten years after September 3, 1964. Each recommendation of the President for designation as "wilderness" shall become effective only if so provided by an Act of Congress. Areas classified as "primitive" on September 3, 1964, shall continue to be administered under the rules and regulations affecting such areas on September 3, 1964, until Congress has determined otherwise. Any such area may be increased in size by the President at the time he submits his recommendation to the Congress by not more than five thousand acres with no more than one thousand two hundred and eighty acres of such increase in any one compact unit; if it is proposed to increase the size of any such area by more than five thousand acres or by more than one thousand two hundred and eighty acres in any one compact unit the increase in size shall not become effective until acted upon by Congress. Nothing herein contained shall limit the President in proposing, as part of his recommendations to Congress, the alteration of existing boundaries of primitive areas or recommending the addition of any contiguous area of national forest lands predominantly of wilderness value. Not withstanding any other provisions of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture may complete his review and delete such area as may be necessary, but not to exceed seven thousand acres, from the southern tip of the Gore Range-Eagles Nest Primitive Area, Colorado, if the Secretary determines that such action is in the public interest. (c) Within ten years after September 3, 1964, the Secretary of the Interior shall review every roadless area of five thousand contiguous acres or more in the national parks, monuments and other units of the national park system and every such area of, and every roadless island within, the national wildlife refuges and game ranges, under his jurisdiction on September 3, 1964, and shall report to the President his recommendation as to the suitability or nonsuitability of each such area or island for preservation as wilderness. The President shall advise the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives of his recommendation with respect to the designation as wilderness of each such area or island on which review has been completed, together with a map thereof and a definition of its boundaries. Such advice shall be given with respect to not less than one-third of the areas and islands to be reviewed under this subsection within three years after September 3, 1964, not less than two-thirds within seven years of September 3, 1964, and the remainder within ten years of September 3, 1964. A recommendation of the President for designation as wilderness shall become effective only if so provided by an Act of Congress. Nothing contained herein shall, by implication or otherwise, be construed to lessen the present statutory authority of the Secretary of the Interior with respect to the maintenance of roadless areas within units of the national park system. (d) (1) The Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior shall, prior to submitting any recommendations to the President with respect to the suitability of any area for preservation as wilderness -- (A) give such public notice of the proposed action as they deem appropriate, including publication in the Federal Register and in a newspaper having general circulation in the area or areas in the vicinity of the affected land; (B) hold a public hearing or hearings at a location or locations convenient to the area affected. The hearings shall be announced through such means as the respective Secretaries involved deem appropriate, including notices in the Federal Register and in newspapers of general circulation in the area: Provided, That if the lands involved are located in more than one State, at least one hearing shall be held in each State in which a portion of the land lies; (C) at least thirty days before the date of a hearing advise the Governor of each State and the governing board of each county, or in Alaska the borough, in which the lands are located, and Federal departments and agencies concerned, and invite such officials and Federal agencies to submit their views on the proposed action at the hearing or by not later than thirty days following the date of the hearing. (2) Any views submitted to the appropriate Secretary under the provisions of (1) of this subsection with respect to any area shall be included with any recommendations to the President and to Congress with respect to such area. (e) Any modification or adjustment of boundaries of any wilderness area shall be recommended by the appropriate Secretary after public notice of such proposal and public hearing or hearings as provided on subsection (d) of this section. The proposed modification or adjustment shall then be recommended with map and description thereof to the President. The President shall advise the United States Senate and the House of Representatives of his recommendations with respect to such modification or adjustment and such recommendations shall become effective only on the same manner as provided for in subsections (b) and (c) of this section. USE OF WILDERNESS AREAS Sec. 4. (a) The purposes of this Act are hereby declared to be within and supplemental to the purposes for which national forests and units of the national park and national wildlife refuge systems are established and administered and -- (1) Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to be in interference with the purpose for which national forests are established as set forth in the Act of June 4, 1897 (30 Stat. 11), and the Multiple Use Sustained-Yield Act of June 12, 1960 (74 Stat. 215). (2) Nothing in this Act shall modify the restrictions and provisions of the Shipstead-Nolan Act (Public Law 539, Seventy-first Congress, July 10, 1930; 46 Stat. 1020),the Thye-Blatnik Act (Public Law 733, Eightieth Congress, June 22, 1948; 62 Stat. 568), and the Humphrey-Thye-Blatnik-Andersen Act (Public Law 607, Eighty-fourth Congress, June 22.1965; 70 Stat. 326), as applying to the Superior National Forest or the regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture. (3) Nothing in this Act shall modify the statutory authority under which units of the national park system are created. Further, the designation of any area of any park, monument, or other unit of the national park system as a wilderness area pursuant to this Act shall in no manner lower the standards evolved for the use and preservation of such park, monument, or other unit of the national park system in accordance with the Act of August 25, 1916, the statutory authority under which the area was created, or any other Act of Congress which might pertain to or affect such area, including, but not limited to, the Act of June 8, 1906 (34 Stat. 225; 16 U.S.C. 432 et seq.); section 3(2) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 796 (2) ); and the Act of August 21,1935 (49 Stat. 666; 16 U.S.C. 461 et seq.). (b) Except as otherwise provided in this Act, each agency administering any area designated as wilderness shall be responsible for preserving the wilderness character of the area and shall so administer such area for such other purposes for which it may have been established as also to preserve its wilderness character. Except as otherwise provided in this Act, wilderness areas shall be devoted to the public purposes of recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation, and historical use. PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN USES (c) Except as specifically provided for in this Act, and subject to existing private rights, there shall be no commercial enterprise and no permanent road within any wilderness area designated by this Act and, except as necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the purpose of this Act (including measures required in emergencies involving the health and safety of persons within the area), there shall be no temporary road, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of mechanical transport, and no structure or installation within any such area. SPECIAL PROVISIONS (d) The following special provisions are hereby made: (1) Within wilderness areas designated by this Act the use of aircraft or motorboats, where these uses have already become established, may be permitted to continue subject to such restrictions as the Secretary of Agriculture deems desirable. In addition, such measures may be taken as may be necessary in the control of fire, insects, and diseases, subject to such conditions as the Secretary deems desirable. (2) Nothing in this Act shall prevent within national forest wilderness areas any activity, including prospecting, for the purpose of gathering information about mineral or other resources, if such activity is carried on in a manner compatible with the preservation of the wilderness environment. Furthermore, in accordance with such program as the Secretary of the Interior shall develop and conduct in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, such areas shall be surveyed on a planned, recurring basis consistent with the concept of wilderness preservation by the Geological Survey and the Bureau of Mines to determine the mineral values, if any, that may be present; and the results of such surveys shall be made available to the public and submitted to the President and Congress. (3) Not withstanding any other provisions of this Act, until midnight December 31, 1983, the United States mining laws and all laws pertaining to mineral leasing shall, to the extent as applicable prior to September 3, 1964, extend to those national forest lands designated by this Act as "wilderness areas"; subject, however, to such reasonable regulations governing ingress and egress as may be prescribed by the Secretary of Agriculture consistent with the use of the land for mineral location and development and exploration, drilling, and production, and use of land for transmission lines, waterlines, telephone lines, or facilities necessary in exploring, drilling, producing, mining, and processing operations, including where essential the use of mechanized ground or air equipment and restoration as near as practicable of the surface of the land disturbed in performing prospecting, location, and , in oil and gas leasing, discovery work, exploration, drilling, and production, as soon as they have served their purpose. Mining locations lying within the boundaries of said wilderness areas shall be held and used solely for mining or processing operations and uses reasonably incident thereto; and hereafter, subject to valid existing rights, all patents issued under the mining laws of the United States affecting national forest lands designated by this Act as wilderness areas shall convey title to the mineral deposits within the claim, together with the right to cut and use so much of the mature timber therefrom as may be needed in the extraction, removal, and beneficiation of the mineral deposits, if needed timber is not otherwise reasonably available, and if the timber is cut under sound principles of forest management as defined by the national forest rules and regulations, but each such patent shall reserve to the United States all title in or to the surface of the lands and products thereof, and no use of the surface of the claim or the resources therefrom not reasonably required for carrying on mining or prospecting shall be allowed except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act: Provided, That, unless hereafter specifically authorized, no patent within wilderness areas designated by this Act shall issue after December 31, 1983, except for the valid claims existing on or before December 31, 1983. Mining claims located after September 3, 1964, within the boundaries of wilderness areas designated by this Act shall create no rights in excess of those rights which may be patented under the provisions of this subsection. Mineral leases, permits, and licenses covering lands within national forest wilderness areas designated by this Act shall contain such reasonable stipulations as may be prescribed by the Secretary of Agriculture for the protection of the wilderness character of the land consistent with the use of the land for the purposes for which they are leased, permitted, or licensed. Subject to valid rights then existing, effective January 1, 1984, the minerals in lands designated by this Act as wilderness areas are withdrawn from all forms of appropriation under the mining laws and from disposition under all laws pertaining to mineral leasing and all amendments thereto. (4) Within wilderness areas in the national forests designated by this Act, (1) the President may, within a specific area and in accordance with such regulations as he may deem desirable, authorize prospecting for water resources, the establishment and maintenance of reservoirs, water-conservation works, power projects, transmission lines, and other facilities needed in the public interest, including the road construction and maintenance essential to development and use thereof, upon his determination that such use or uses in the specific area will better serve the interests of the United States and the people thereof than will its denial; and (2) the grazing of livestock, where established prior to September 3, 1964, shall be permitted to continue subject to such reasonable regulations as are deemed necessary by the Secretary of Agriculture. (5) Other provisions of this Act to the contrary notwithstanding, the management of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area, formerly designated as the Superior, Little Indian Sioux, and Caribou Roadless Areas, in the Superior National Forest, Minnesota, shall be in accordance with the general purpose of maintaining, without unnecessary restrictions on other uses, including that of timber, the primitive character of the area, particularly in the vicinity of lakes, streams, and portages: Provided, That nothing in this Act shall preclude the continuance within the area of any already established use of motorboats. (6) Commercial services may be performed within the wilderness areas designated by this Act to the extent necessary for activities which are proper for realizing the recreational or other wilderness purposes of the areas. (7) Nothing in this Act shall constitute an express or implied claim or denial on the part of the Federal Government as to exemption from State water laws. (8) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as affecting the jurisdiction or responsibilities of the several States with respect to wildlife and fish in the national forests. STATE AND PRIVATE LANDS WITHIN WILDERNESS AREAS Sec. 5. (a) In any case where State-owned or privately owned land is completely surrounded by national forest lands within areas designated by this Act as wilderness, such State or private owner shall be given such rights as may be necessary to assure adequate access to such State-owned or privately owned land by such State or private owner and their successors in interest, or the State-owned land or privately owned land shall be exchanged for federally owned land in the same State of approximately equal value under authorities available to the Secretary of Agriculture: Provided, however, That the United States shall not transfer to a state or private owner any mineral interests unless the State or private owner relinquishes or causes to be relinquished to the United States the mineral interest in the surrounded land. (b) In any case where valid mining claims or other valid occupancies are wholly within a designated national forest wilderness area, the Secretary of Agriculture shall, by reasonable regulations consistent with the preservation of the area as wilderness, permit ingress and egress to such surrounded areas by means which have been or are being customarily enjoyed with respect to other such areas similarly situated. (c) Subject to the appropriation of funds by Congress, the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to acquire privately owned land within the perimeter of any area designated by this Act as wilderness if (1) the owner concurs in such acquisition or (2) the acquisition is specifically authorized by Congress. GIFTS, BEQUESTS, AND CONTRIBUTIONS Sec. 6. (a) The Secretary of Agriculture may accept gifts or bequests of land within wilderness areas designated by this Act for preservation as wilderness. The Secretary of Agriculture may also accept gifts or bequests of land adjacent to wilderness areas designated by this Act for preservation as wilderness if he has given sixty days advance notice thereof to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Land accepted by the Secretary of Agriculture under this section shall become part of the wilderness area involved. Regulations with regard to any such land may be in accordance with such agreements, consistent with the policy of this Act, as are made at the time of such gift, or such conditions, consistent with such policy, as may be included in, and accepted with, such bequest. (b) The Secretary of Agriculture or the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to accept private contributions and gifts to be used to further the purpose of this Act. ANNUAL REPORTS Sec. 7. At the opening of each session of Congress, the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior shall jointly report to the President for transmission to Congress on the status of the wilderness system, including a list and descriptions of the areas in the system, regulations in effect, and other pertinent information, together with any recommendations they may care to make. Approved September 3, 1964. _____________________ LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: HOUSE REPORTS: No. 1538 accompanying H.R. 9070 (Comm. on Interior & Insular Affairs) and No. 1829 (Comm. of Conference). SENATE REPORT: No. 109 (Comm. on Interior & Insular Affairs). CONGRESSIONAL RECORD: Vol. 109 (1963): Apr. 4, 8, considered in Senate. Apr. 9, considered and passed Senate. Vol. 110 (1964): July 28, considered in House July 30, considered and passed House, amended, in lieu of H. R. 9070. Aug. 20, House and Senate agreed to conference report. ===================================== read this http://www.wildwilderness.org/wi/bolting.htm and this http://www.americanalpineclub.org/pdfs/fixedcon.pdf my comments: in the middle ^^ Dont let the modz catch you wasting bandwidth like this or your gonna get a time out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|