Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rambozo
Maybe you missed this part-
"inserting on a computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise managing the sexually explicit content, of a computer site or service that contains a visual depiction of, sexually explicit conduct."
|
this is exactly why its such a mess.
read further. there are laws stacked on laws that still are not ammended laws.
bureacracy at its finest.
Quote:
|
" But the "digitizing an image, of a visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct; or, assembling, manufacturing, publishing, duplicating, reproducing, or reissuing a book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digital image, or picture, or other matter intended for commercial distribution, that contains a visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct" is exactly what the Justice Department, in its §2257 regulations, has been referring to as the definition of a "secondary producer" ? and it's that definition, which had no basis in the original Child Protection Restoration and Penalties Enhancement Act, that was struck down by the Tenth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the famous Sundance Associates v. Reno case as being an unwarranted interpretation of the statute."
|
it wll be interesting to see larry, eric's and JD's views on this. btw, i'm not antagonizing you into a debate whatsoever. i'm fed up with armchair webmaster lawyering and the like. since i started in 99 this crap has been around. my whole point is that there will always be heat in some form we may as well get used to it and adapt.
so no offense if you are taking any.
