How worried are you about the COPA issue?

If this is to pass, what do you feel will come down on you? Are you worried about the consequences? It'll be easy to comply, but if you've dome this a few years, are you worried about legal issues?

[twistyneck]

I don't have any free porn to speak of, I censor the rest of it, so no, I'm not especially worried except in the sense that once again we'll have had our Constitutional rights trampled.

[Paul Markham]

Porn will still be around after they make a decision. It will just effect how it's delivered.

The sky is not falling yet.

Originally posted by twistyneck
I don't have any free porn to speak of, I censor the rest of it, so no, I'm not especially worried except in the sense that once again we'll have had our Constitutional rights trampled.

Of course. They love fucking with our rights. I'm just concerned arout this being approved for the simple fact that it's retroactive. If you've posted free porn in the last 6 years, what are the odds of a trip to a federal prison?

[twistyneck]

Originally posted by shermsshack
Of course. They love fucking with our rights. I'm just concerned arout this being approved for the simple fact that it's retroactive. If you've posted free porn in the last 6 years, what are the odds of a trip to a federal prison?

How can it be retroactive?

From the Constitution...

No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.

From Cornell University...

Ex post facto

Latin for "from a thing done afterward." Ex post facto is most typically used to refer to a law that applies retroactively, thereby criminalizing conduct that was legal when originally performed. Two clauses in the US Constitution prohibit ex post facto laws: Art 1, § 9 and Art. 1 § 10. see, e.g. Collins v. Youngblood 497 US 37 (1990) and California Dep't of Corrections v. Morales 514 US 499 (1995).

So am I missing something here?

Originally posted by twistyneck
How can it be retroactive?

From the Constitution...

No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.

From Cornell University...

Ex post facto

Latin for "from a thing done afterward." Ex post facto is most typically used to refer to a law that applies retroactively, thereby criminalizing conduct that was legal when originally performed. Two clauses in the US Constitution prohibit ex post facto laws: Art 1, § 9 and Art. 1 § 10. see, e.g. Collins v. Youngblood 497 US 37 (1990) and California Dep't of Corrections v. Morales 514 US 499 (1995).

So am I missing something here?

From MrFiction in a previous post:

From what I have read previously, this law, if it is allowed by the Supreme Court, would be in effect retroactive to when it was first signed.

Everyone who has run a free site since it was first signed, years ago, would be in violation and they could arrest you anytime they want.

Almost everyone in the adult industry, and many other webmasters and business not in the adult industry, including Lensman for running GFY, would become a criminal if the Supreme Court rules for this law.


__________________

Apparently this bill has been brought forth several times. I'm wondering what truth this statement has to it.

[twistyneck]

It looks like at one time there was a restraining order issued which prohibits the government from retroactively enforcing it. I have no idea of the status of that, the article looked pretty old.

I seriously doubt this thing will be upheld. Earlier versions have been tossed out over and over and over again.

[WiredGuy]

Not worried one bit.
WG

[baddog]

I would not worry about it kids, the Supreme Court sent it back before, they will again . . . although I wish they wouldn't

[V_RocKs]

Not to worried. Gotta remember to do my taxes before the extension is up too... oh well...