Quote:
|
Originally Posted by clickhappy
Injunctions are orders made by courts.
You cannot be subject to an order made by a court without being a party to the lawsuit in which the order was made.
|
exactly right but...
If you are granted an injunction because the law is possibly unconstitutional the same party isnt going to come after me because it is a waste of time, I go straight to a Judge and file for protection/postponement and it gets granted. Its a waste of time...Even the feds know that
what amuses me here is that this is even being discussed we dont even know that there IS a deal, much less any terms. Suffice it to say any protection from prosecution offered to FSC members would essentially apply to everyone.
IF the FSC actually cut a deal I want to see what it is before I pass judgement but it is unlikely that the FSC got the law rewritten or anything like that and the law as it is would have extreme difficulty passing constitutional muster.
There may be some very unintended consequences that come out of this as well. This could squarely negate the Community Standards argument and place the definition of obscenity on the Federal Government, In support of this argument the courts can find that particularly internet porn falls under Interstate Commerce which is unarguably the domain of the Federal Government.
The privacy issues, the right not to incriminate yourself, states rights, and unreasonable search and seizure are all at issue here, this is clearly a poorly written peice of legislation and it is likely that a judge will see it for what it is but until such time as all this is settled its going to be someones onus to fight for the rest of us. This is where I currently applaud the efforts of the FSC, let us all hope they don't cave.