Child Porn Messages not Protected

[Johnny]

Interesting . . .

The Supreme Court on Monday gave prosecutors a powerful tool to attack the spread of child pornography online, ruling that people who send messages over the computer offering or seeking sexual images of children can be sent to prison, even when no such pornography exists.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-court-pornmay20,0,3382948.story

[gaydemon]

I wouldnt have thought that type of spammers would be based in the US though..

and can the law not easily be missinterpreted, what if someone doesnt mean underage but uses words that could be missunderstood such as "gay boys" or "twinks"?

[ChadKnowsLaw]

I read the ruling and it actually addresses most of the real concerns of legitimate pornographers.

If you are selling young models, but have the disclaimer "All models are over 18" then you are not offering child porn, and a reasonable person would not think that you are offering child porn. "Barely Legal" still implies that the models are legal, and if you dress them up like school boys but state "All models over 18" you are not violating the law.

If you change the commodity from child porn to cocaine it makes perfect sense. I cannot legally sell cocaine, so if I am selling real cocaine I can be prosecuted. If I am selling baking powder but I am packaging it to look like cocaine and tell my buyers that it is cocaine, and a reasonable person would believe it is cocaine, I can be prosecuted for the attempt to sell cocaine.
If I sell baking powder in small plastic baggies on a bad street corner but have a "Contents: 100% pure baking powder" label on the baggies I cannot be prosecuted for selling baggies of pure baking powder.

The reasoning is that child porn is illegal, so the government can prohibit the advertising or soliciting of child porn just like any other illegal product.


Rarely do I agree with a Scalia opinion, but this one is actually well written.

[gaydemon]

im surprised, sounds like they actually have thought this one through!


I read the ruling and it actually addresses most of the real concerns of legitimate pornographers.

If you are selling young models, but have the disclaimer "All models are over 18" then you are not offering child porn, and a reasonable person would not think that you are offering child porn. "Barely Legal" still implies that the models are legal, and if you dress them up like school boys but state "All models over 18" you are not violating the law.

If you change the commodity from child porn to cocaine it makes perfect sense. I cannot legally sell cocaine, so if I am selling real cocaine I can be prosecuted. If I am selling baking powder but I am packaging it to look like cocaine and tell my buyers that it is cocaine, and a reasonable person would believe it is cocaine, I can be prosecuted for the attempt to sell cocaine.
If I sell baking powder in small plastic baggies on a bad street corner but have a "Contents: 100% pure baking powder" label on the baggies I cannot be prosecuted for selling baggies of pure baking powder.

The reasoning is that child porn is illegal, so the government can prohibit the advertising or soliciting of child porn just like any other illegal product.


Rarely do I agree with a Scalia opinion, but this one is actually well written.