06-26-2005, 02:55 PM
|
|
|
Confirmed User
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 294
|
here's a post made by one of the plaintiffs of the suit (FSC of Colorado)
Quote:
As for the idea of attacking the entire law.
1... When you go to buy a car the dealer will ask for full price and you will offer a way lower price. Eventually a deal will be made someplace in the middle.
In this case FSC is saying that ALL of the law, and the burdens it places on us, is an unconstitutional prior restraint on presumptively protected speech.
The DOJ will deny that and say it is ALL perfectly within the contitutional powers of Congress to enact such things, and within the powers of the AG to ceate these new regulations.
The Judge, may very likely stick PARTS of the law and the regulations.
We ask for it all.
They offer nothing.
The Judge settles in the middle. See my third point below.
2... FSC lawyers, and many 1st Amendment lawyers outside of the FSC, have wanted to attack 2257 for years. They almost did in 1999.
In this matter the DOJ's new rulings actually enforce the position that the whole 2257 thing is worthless in the battle against CP.
Now is finally the time to attack 2257 because the new regulations clearly show that DOJ wants to use it to regulate us, not go after 2257.
3... This strategy has worked well before. Back in the 90s Congress changed 2256 to include some terms like "appears to be" when referring to persons under age 18.
Meaning that your model could be 20, but if she happened to be slim and flat chested and look more like 15 or 16, you could be charged and CONVICTED of child porn.
Convicted for a model age 20. No Shit!
Or, if you advertised a 20 year old model in a manner that conveyed the impression that she was under 18 you could be charged and convicted.
The FSC stepped in back then and attacked 2256 in full, and specifically those new terms.
The main question was "appeared to who"
If she appears to be 16 to a cop, but nobody else?
If she appears to be 16 to a pedophile, but nobody else?
The term "appears to be" was vaque and confusing.
FSC sued, just as they have done this time.
They fought, they won. John Ashcroft fought back and it reached the US Supreme Court at 10:00am on October 10th, 2001.
Louis Sirkin -- THE SAME FSC LAWYER working the 2257 matter -- argued in front of the 9 Justices of the Court.
On April 22, 2002, the Court issued a ruling in favor of the FSC and those terms are no longer inforceable within 2256.
Its a battle. It takes tons of time and money.
The attack on all of 2257 is great for us.
I was involved in a case once over laws like this and made it a hobby to read everything about the law and how it all works. Not just a few pages, but hundreds and hundreds of cases about 1st Amendment law going back to the Roth obscenity case in the 50s, right up to the current cases like Extreeme Associates.
FSC actually has a darn good arguement within the 2257 battle -- and they just started.
Jimmy
|
|
|
|