Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mikesouth
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.
|
It has been interesting conjecturing all evening about what might happen and all the different scenarios.
And in the "I'm a member of FSC, so I'm exempt for X amount of time from prosecution" settlement sceanrio..it has been suggested that non-members can and probably will be prosecuted.
However, in the real world, if the ABC company is brought to trial for violation of the new 2257 regs, and is not a member of the FSC, you can bet the farm that the first thing the attorney for the ABC company will do in court is say "Your Honor, I move to dismiss this case on the grounds that there is inherent discrimination towards my client in this suit. The ABC Company is doing absolutely nothing different than the XYZ Company is doing, in fact, they are both doing the EXACT SAME THING! However, the XYZ Company will never be prosecuted for what my client is brought to court for."
The Judge would probably ask the prosecution something along the lines of "Is that right?"..and the prosecution would have to say "Yes".
The Judge thinks: "The only thing the defendant has done wrong was NOT to join the FSC."
What do you think the Judge would do then?