|
my understanding is that they are saying you don't need a second law telling you not to break the first law. it is not about proof of age, its about requiring a publisher to have the docs as 2257 does.
its illegal to produce and publish pics of an underage person. the burden of proof is still on the person that produced the image.
i would guess (without caring enough to read the decisions) that they view it as being redundant to create a law to insure no one is breaking the first law. otherwise... why not create 1000 laws... with the 1000th, to make sure you don't break the 999th, the 999th to make sure you don't break the 998th etc...
|