Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In all but two states (and the special case of Ohio, which "targets only parental figures"), [1] incest is criminalized between consenting adults. In New Jersey and Rhode Island, incest between consenting adults (16 or over for Rhode Island, 18 or over for New Jersey) is not a criminal offense, though marriage is not allowed in either state.
The law broadly defines pornography as "any representation of the sexual parts of a person for primarily sexual excitement". [40] The law says that "a person shall not produce, traffic in, publish, broadcast, procure, import, export, sell or abet any form of pornography". Breaches of the law are punishable with up to ten years in jail. [43]
Listed pros and cons must, as for all content, be sourced by a reference, either in the list or elsewhere in the article. (A "criticisms and defenses" list is a backwards pro and con list. The opposing side is presented first, followed by the responses of the defending side. Lists of this form seem to grow out of more contentious articles.)
The Texas law would “probably not be constitutional under existing precedent,” he said, but added that given the court’s conservative majority, the justices could decide to “change that ...
Pressed on whether Texas’ age verification law meets that sweet spot, Fletcher said all the state laws have potential issues that courts need to test. For example, he said, their ...
Internet censorship is the legal control or suppression of what can be accessed, published, or viewed on the Internet. Censorship is most often applied to specific internet domains (such as Wikipedia.org, for example) but exceptionally may extend to all Internet resources located outside the jurisdiction of the censoring state.
By Brendan Pierson (Reuters) -The U.S. Department of Justice announced a lawsuit on Wednesday accusing pharmacy chain CVS of filling illegal opioid prescriptions and billing federal health ...
Berkeley Law's California Constitution Center countered Macbeth and Bernal in stating that California's direct democracy imposes limitations on the state judiciary in overturning the constitutional amendment, writing that "further initiatives and retention elections are potent threats to courts that ignore majority preferences."