Template:Did you know nominations/Connection Distributing Co. v. Holder

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Allen3 ^talk 21:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Connection Distributing Co. v. Holder

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that in Connection Distributing Co. v. Holder, the Sixth Circuit held that record-keeping requirements of the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act was not unconstitutional?

Created/expanded by Info235sp14-ask (talk). Nominated by MasanoriSasaki (talk) at 10:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC).

• Long enough, new enough. Hook short enough and sourced. QPQ unnecessary. No copyvios found. Good to go.--Launchballer 13:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)