|
This has everything do do with to do with sex trafficking and marketing/advertising prostitution over the Internet.
It has nothing to do with copyright, intellectual property, tubes or any of your agendas.
As long as "porn" remains as an object that is a speech issue, with first amendment protections, the courts *should* not infer any meaning towards what is precedented legal conduct.
'trafficking' from what I see, is a criminal and territorial issue in the USA. The dictionary and legal meaning is not the same IMO.
|