Free cyberchat room
This is a great site which caters for members of all agees, It is a top chat room directory with many different categories and interests.
The primary purpose of an online chat room is to communicate information with other people through text in real time. While it would appear that such protections would extend to conduct in online chat rooms, case law has determined that certain narrowly defined categories of speech or conduct do not receive constitutional protection anywhere. 2329 (1997) when it struck down portions of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) that prohibited “indecent” online publications. One type of true threat is intimidation, where the speaker directs a threat toward a person or group of people “with the intent of placing the victim in fear of bodily harm or death.” Id. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals (whose decisions are not binding on Connecticut) noted that every court addressing the issue has held that the “First Amendment does not necessarily pose a bar to liability for aiding and abetting a crime, even when such aiding and abetting takes the form of the spoken or written word.” Rice v. It does not appear to cover messages posted on Internet bulletin boards or webpages, social networking sites, or other one-way communications. However, certain transmissions in online chat rooms could be covered. 503 (1969), in order to remain aligned with the current rule, which permits school discipline for student speech that causes a “substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities” or “substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others.” Id. Online Free Chat is an old chat site which gets alot of users.But, valid time, place, or manner restrictions on content-neutral speech are constitutional if they are (1) narrowly drawn, (2) serve a significant government interest, and (3) leave open ample alternative channels of communication (Ward v. It must be directed to incite or produce imminent lawless action and be likely to do so (Brandenburg v. The Court has more recently narrowed the definition of fighting words to exclude mere inconvenience, annoyance, or offensive content, and to include only “personally abusive epithets which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, are, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke violent reactions.” Cohen v.
Additionally, states may not prohibit only certain fighting words based on their content.
These include: (1) threats, (2) advocating imminent lawless action, (3) inciting imminent violence (“fighting words”), (4) obscenity, (5) child pornography, (6) libel, and (7) copyright or trademark infringements. Supreme Court extended the protection of the First Amendment to the Internet in Reno v. The Supreme Court has ruled that a “true threat” is not protected by the First Amendment.
Moreover, the courts have ruled that speech or conduct that becomes harassment or stalking is not protected by the First Amendment under certain circumstances, and that speech aiding or abetting a crime is likewise not protected. A true threat is where a speaker means to communicate a “serious expression of intent to commit an unlawful act of violence to a particular individual or group of individuals.” Virginia v.
The UK's top chat site, this new and upcoming site has grown alot over it's first year under new management.
Thousends of new memebers are joining up every day.
Constitution does not forbid states from prohibiting the sale of material depicting children engaged in sexual activity.