Quote:
|
Originally Posted by nicchick
Remember, they can charge you with anything they want but convicting you is an entirely different matter. They will have to convince a jury that you deserve 5 years in prison for improper record keeping, even though you have absolutely nothing to do with CP. They don't just march you off to jail - you have a right to a trial by a jury of your peers. Stats say that 65% of men over 18 and 35% of women look at porn sites. Chances are that a few of these citizens would end up on your jury and some will see this law for what it is - an attempt to incriminate people involved in a legal business via regulation traps.
One of the reasons the government doesn't prosecute more obscenity cases is because when they do they LOSE them. The people on a jury decide your guilt or innocence - Not George Bush or Alberto Gonzales or Jerry Fallwell. There are literally thousands of laws on the books that the government doesn't enforce. There will undoubtedly be some test cases on this one and the outcome of those will determine how aggressively the feds will try to enforce these. This is just the beginning of a long legal process.
|
Yes that is true but the government can cherry pick the jurisdictions for each case. So for example if you have a petite 18 year old blonde on her 18th birthday getting double anal from a half dozen black guys, I am sure the Bush admin would pick "Alabama" as a logical place to try that.
Actually though, if there ever was an actual "2257 only" case the prosecution would not be allowed to disclose the web site or pictures to the jury, it would be irrevelant and prejudicial, so you would just br tried on the merits of the case.