Quote:
Originally posted by jas1552
You shouldn't have left out the first part.
|
It doesn?t really matter because the stuff he is complaining about (the images) in that second paragraph didn?t even appear on the defendant?s sites if I am not mistaken. They occurred once he actually left the defendant?s sites and went to the sponsor?s sites. Again I think the significance of this is being lost on a lot of people. Merely linking to a sponsor behind a warning page is strong enough grounds for the government to claim that you intentionally tried to entice children to look at porn.