Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Redrob
And, to make the matters worse, they want to revoke his bond because he didn?t take down the erotic content on his site after he was busted citing probable cause that he has continued to operate an ?obscene website?. There is just one rub: The website has never been found to be obscene.
This seems to me to be a new form of speech: Presumptive Obscenity. Under current law, as I understand it, a message can not be inferred to be obscene until there has been an adversarial hearing before a judge. And, the hearing for Chris hasn?t happened.
|
I think there are many troubling aspects to the case, particularly the selective enforcement applied to a politically-controversial site when millions of similarly "obscene" sites are never touched, and the "probable cause" determination itself.
But the details of his current bond revocation do not paint a sympathetic picture to me. At his arrest, the defendant was aware the judge felt the content of his site was probably illegal. Upon release, he was told to refrain from further illegal activity. After release, he continued to add more content which the judge would consider similarly illegal. If the judge revokes his bond, it shouldn't be surprising. He was released based on certain conditions which he violated. (Based on cursory press accounts I've seen, anyway).