View Single Post
Old 08-31-2015, 06:56 AM  
Barry-xlovecam
It's 42
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Global
Posts: 18,083
That was the reason that the Reagan administration and the DOJ AJ Ed Meese's imminet harm reasoning for §2257

Quote:
Why did the Traci Lords caliope instantly crash to the ground?

In the first place, her actual name was neither Kristie Elizabeth Nussman nor Christie Lee Nussman, but Nora Louise Kuzma.

In the second place, she was only fifteen years old when this story began. You would probably know her better as Traci Lords.

The fallout from the Traci Lords story came fast and furious, and included a round of criminal prosecutions of video distributors, the appeal of at least one of which went to the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Excitement Video, 513 U.S. 64 (1994), a case that established that a child pornography conviction requires proof that the defendant knew that the material depicted a minor.
Handbook on Section 2257 by J. D. Obenberger - XXXLAW Compliance 5th Ed.
By Attorney J. D. Obenberger

J.D. pops in here every now and then -- basically, he wrote the book on this.

I don't know ... If you knowingly posses child porn and view it for your pleasure could you be prosecuted? What do you think?
Barry-xlovecam is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote