That will almost certainly be something reversed on appeal.
Quote:
|
In its ruling, the 10th Circuit noted that each section of the statute in question “requires the government to establish that in committing the offense a visual image ‘has been mailed, or has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce . . . by any means including by computer,’” and held that since the government did not meet that burden, Schaefer’s conviction must be overturned.
|
It sort of falls in the category of "how the fuck else did it get there?". The data came from a computer outside the state, a site that the defendant joined, and the images are now in his computer. A simple tracert from one point to another should show that the material had to flow out of the state borders to be obtained.
This is actually potentially a horrible judgement for another reason entirely: let's say the courts uphold this. So who actually brought the material into the state? Would the bandwidth provider, or the company that operated the first router in the state that was touched be the one that caused it to enter the state?
The judges appear to be making an assumption that the data was spontaniously created without source, which is pretty silly, or that a third party did the work of transport.
How truly odd.
This one will certainly get appealed.