here -- The statute obviously involves promoting child pr0n, and the court writes:
There is a great description of people accusing each other of being cops in a chat room. Despite the fact that a few parapgrahs of the opinion disturb my view of the first amendment as protecting human destiny (though it acknowledges my view), it is rather well-written, traces the development of the PROTECT ACT, and contains these choice words:
In this case, however, the law does not seek to attach liability to the materials, but to the ideas and images communicated to the viewer by those materials. This shifts the focus from a community standard to the perverted but privately held belief that materials are lascivious. Through this lens, virtually all depictions of children, whom to pedophiles are highly eroticized sexual objects, are likely to draw a deviant response. Many pedophiles collect and are sexually stimulated by nonpornographic depictions of children such as commercially produced images of children in clothing catalogs, television, cinema, newspapers, and magazines — otherwise innocent pictures that are not traditionally seen as child pornography and which non-pedophiles consider innocuous. As illustrated in this case, relatively innocent candid snapshots of children, such as those initially exchanged by the defendant Williams and the undercover agent, are also collected and used as a medium of exchange. We cannot, however, outlaw those legal and mainstream materials and we may not outlaw the thoughts conjured up by those legal materials.
There is some Booker stuff in there, too.
Recent Comments