tony286

I cant believe this wasnt brought up here,this is very very important for online only businesses.
http://xbiz.com/news/84246

After Shock Media

Very interesting.

Please everyone under me in this thread. Do not argue about the CP aspect and keep on track with the state lines issue, pretty pretty please.

__________________

After Shock Media

Very interesting.

Please everyone under me in this thread. Do not argue about the CP aspect and keep on track with the state lines issue, pretty pretty please.

__________________

After Shock Media

Very interesting.

Please everyone under me in this thread. Do not argue about the CP aspect and keep on track with the state lines issue, pretty pretty please.

__________________

tony286

The state lines issue is what caught my eye, its a fucked way to get that ruling but beggars cant be choosers.

After Shock Media

WTF board is going fucking batshit.

Been real bad as of late.

__________________

tony286

yep and as slow as snot.

GreyWolf

Nice point Tony tho very nit-picky arguements, but clarification on the intention of the law.




PS The sideline CP issue seems like another clusterfuck over 11 images tho, who knows, there may be more in the background and further issues not presented as part of this trial.

DaddyHalbucks

There are some confusing matters of law in that article.

Why is it important to prove interstate commerce? Isn't possessing CP itself a prosecutable crime?

__________________
Boner Money

D

Without proof of interstate commerce, the Fed has no constitutional jurisdiction.

Despite what our current executive might think, we're still a constitutional government.



Thanks for the link, Tony... good read.

__________________
-D.
ICQ: 202-96-31

Adult Site Traffic

That, I agree with 100%. Well said.

A-S-T

__________________

ALL Domains and Websites are GOING AWAY NOW! Ask me!
Many great domains, mainstream and adult, some complete sites with databases, some names with traffic and PR, some investment quality names. Come take a look! { Traffic Orders: Please go here }

.:: SHARPEN the Elite - BURN the leftovers! Ooh-Rah!! ::.

Va2k

Bump Bump

MikeSmoke

The point is, as was pointed out in the article:
"This was a highly fact-specific ruling,? Apgood said. ?The government failed to prove an element of the case."
That element was that the images in question came from a server or site in another state or country. They mostly likely did - the feds just screwed up in not dotting their i's and crossing their t's and proving it. If they had shown where the image originated, then they would have had jurisdiction --- they just didn't prove that element of the case.
So it's not really something that would have an impact on anyone here, unless they were looking to overturn a conviction, IMO.

(Usual "not a lawyer" disclaimer goes here.)

__________________

icq: 541-739-92

Martin3

It's an important ruling, just happened under shitty circumstances.
Was going to make a thread about it yesterday but figured it would just fly of the heads of most people here.

__________________
264-543-302

nation-x

I don't really see how it has any bearing on webmasters at all. What does this have to do with maintaining and providing id info to the feds if they knock on your door? Nada.

RawAlex

That will almost certainly be something reversed on appeal.

It sort of falls in the category of "how the fuck else did it get there?". The data came from a computer outside the state, a site that the defendant joined, and the images are now in his computer. A simple tracert from one point to another should show that the material had to flow out of the state borders to be obtained.

This is actually potentially a horrible judgement for another reason entirely: let's say the courts uphold this. So who actually brought the material into the state? Would the bandwidth provider, or the company that operated the first router in the state that was touched be the one that caused it to enter the state?

The judges appear to be making an assumption that the data was spontaniously created without source, which is pretty silly, or that a third party did the work of transport.

How truly odd.

This one will certainly get appealed.

After Shock Media

Alex maybe that person scaned it it. Who really knows. Yes it is fairly obvious that they got it online. However if they did not proove that fact and just said well he has internet access duh.... that is not valid proof nor enough to bring in the feds since there would of been no interstate commerce and thus they had no rights to arrest or prosecute him.

BTW I am not to sure the Gov gets to appeal, one bite at the apple ya know.

__________________

Kevin Marx

Interesting question.. and I think goes along the lines of our piracy debate as well. How much liability does a contribution to the crime via the Internet really have? Just claiming ignorance as the conduit may or may not be enough.

__________________
ICQ: 370 037 008

Kevin Marx

I am surprised that this really matters. It wouldn't be double jeopardy if the State then charged him with the crime of possession of CP would it? Do the Feds just want the glory of it or did the State give up the right to prosecute the minute the Feds took it?

__________________
ICQ: 370 037 008