View Single Post
Old 03-15-2003, 10:52 PM  
eroswebmaster
March 1st, 2003
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Seat 4 @ Venetian Poker Room
Posts: 20,295
Quote:
Originally posted by stevo
"They were required to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was personally sexually gratified or aroused as he produced these materials, and they couldn't find that"

What type of law is this???

So basically they're saying child porn is legal as long as your not sexually gratified by it?
No what they are saying is ART is legal no matter how it might offend you.

In other words just because they called it CP does not make it so in the eyes of the law.

Since I didn't see any of the photos, didn't get to listen to any of the testimony, view the evidence, or be instructed about the law by the judge in this case I can't really decide if I would have found the man guilty or not...and neither can any of you.
__________________
For rent - ICQ 127-027-910
Click here for more details
eroswebmaster is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote