GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - Supreme Court Rules to Protect Children

- Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)

- - Supreme Court Rules to Protect Children (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=834008)

Supreme Court Rules to Protect Children

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony404 (Post 14302138)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,365242,00.html

from the article:
"Child pornography has become a $3 billion annual industry. These are only a few of the disturbing statistics not cited by the dissent."

$3B, really? So who's doing all that credit card processing then? :1orglaugh

Fight the money trail!

$3b uhhh

WHERE!?

Are people paying 10k for 1 scene?

It's like the heroin they say is supporting the taliban... who the fuck is doing all of this heroin!?

"Six years ago the Supreme Court came out with a disastrous decision, which made prosecuting child porn cases virtually impossible."

Ummmm.... it always helps to start your legal analysis with an outright falsehood, right?

That statement is so absurd, it boggles the mind. In the 6 years since FSC v. Ashcroft was decided, there have been hundreds, if not thousands, of convictions on CP charges across the country.

What the hell is Lis Wiehl talking about? Not reality, that's for sure.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FightThisPatent (Post 14302201)

Yeah I know who is tracking this?

......Ahhh Fox Fox Fox................ these people are sure to be monkeys ....

Quote:

Originally Posted by article

Is there a crisis in the ability to prosecute child pornography cases? The Supreme Court's 2002 ruling that digitally altered images of child pornography is a protected form of free speech resulted in defense attorneys questioning the authenticity of images in an effort to introduce reasonable doubt into the minds of the jurors. As a result, prosecutors must bring in experts to help prove the case. This costs tens of thousands of dollars, which makes it less likely that cases will be brought.

That's absurd. That's like saying in order to prosecute murder you need DNA experts and analysis and fingerprint experts and analysis and as a result, it's less likely that cases will be brought. Therefore, the burden of proof for murder shouldn't be so high.

I hate, absolutely hate, defending CP or anyone or anything even remotely involved in it....and I DON'T disagree with the ruling that was made recently.....but I do disagree with their assessment of the 2002 ruling. Allowing that law to stand would have been going too far into the world of Orwell's 1984.