Your/my daddy/girl relationship could be illegal.

[Betticus]

http://www.avn.com/index.cfm?objectid=F38755DF-D62A-0C35-B82D7ECD1F4BFB72

Child-Porn Law Under Review by Supreme Court
Free-speech advocates call laws too broad, unconstitutional.

According to this story, the current law makes ageplay and daddy/girl with age under legal adult for one of the partners punishable by up to twenty years in federal prison.


Any thoughts?

 

[intothewoods]

Hopefully the law will be struck down. I heard some of the oral argument on NPR the other day. Keeping my fingers crossed.

I mean, I doubt it will come to the point that adults who partake in age play will be arrested en masse, but I'm kinda hardcore on free speech. Just funny like that.

 

[BiBunny]

Good God. First of all, that's totally ridiculous. Secondly, if this little measure were to pass, who, pray tell, is going to enforce it? And how?

Jesus Christ, people are fucking stupid.

 

[Betticus]

Hopefully the law will be struck down. I heard some of the oral argument on NPR the other day. Keeping my fingers crossed.

I mean, I doubt it will come to the point that adults who partake in age play will be arrested en masse, but I'm kinda hardcore on free speech. Just funny like that.

We could probably already find instances where people have been thrown in jail for "illegal thought".

 

[Betticus]

Good God. First of all, that's totally ridiculous. Secondly, if this little measure were to pass, who, pray tell, is going to enforce it? And how?

Jesus Christ, people are fucking stupid.

Oh no, you don't understand.

This IS the CURRENT law. This is the one that made dressing up legal age girls to appear underage in sexual situations illegal. Cartoons of girls who "appear" to be underage in sexual context illegal, etc.

From what I just read they made it illegal to present the material with the intent of making one "think" the person is underage illegal.

So, let's take ageplay for example. If someone likes to dress up and pretend to be younger than legal for sex play, picks up a person of age in a club/bar, the mall and has sex with them while they "think" or may think you are underage then they could get 20 in the federal lockup.

Pretty scary huh?

How would this translate to younger girls who lie, get fake ID and pretend to be older and have sex with an adult? We all know that he usually goes to jail regardless.

 

[intothewoods]

We could probably already find instances where people have been thrown in jail for "illegal thought".

Oh good lord. You're worse than me! Can we not have a thread about the law that descends into paranoia. Let's stick with facts. Facts are your friend!

It's true life's been a bitch for civil liberties these days, so I understand, but let's see what happens.

 

[BiBunny]

Oh no, you don't understand.

This IS the CURRENT law. This is the one that made dressing up legal age girls to appear underage in sexual situations illegal. Cartoons of girls who "appear" to be underage in sexual context illegal, etc.

From what I just read they made it illegal to present the material with the intent of making one "think" the person is underage illegal.

So, let's take ageplay for example. If someone likes to dress up and pretend to be younger than legal for sex play, picks up a person of age in a club/bar, the mall and has sex with them while they "think" or may think you are underage then they could get 20 in the federal lockup.

Pretty scary huh?

How would this translate to younger girls who lie, get fake ID and pretend to be older and have sex with an adult? We all know that he usually goes to jail regardless.

Ok, yes, I read it more closely. I'm sorry, Bett. Brain fart.

But you're right. Scary, stupid, and utterly ridiculous. Way to pass moronic laws to make people think you're actually doing something about a problem rather than, you know, actually getting off your collective asses and doing something about the problem.

'Cause all the problems in the world are caused by those Internet chat room freaks, dontcha know?

 

[Betticus]

Oh good lord. You're worse than me! Can we not have a thread about the law that descends into paranoia. Let's stick with facts. Facts are your friend!

It's true life's been a bitch for civil liberties these days, so I understand, but let's see what happens.

I like paranoia!

 

[Betticus]

On April 6, 2006, in United States v. Williams, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that one component of the PROTECT ACT, the "pandering provision" codified at 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(3)(B) of the United States Code, violated the First Amendment. The "pandering provision" conferred criminal liability on anyone who knowingly

advertises, promotes, presents, distributes, or solicits through the mails, or in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer, any material or purported material in a manner that reflects the belief, or that is intended to cause another to believe, that the material or purported material is, or contains (i) an obscene visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or (ii) a visual depiction of an actual minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct.

 

[Betticus]

* Authorizes fines and/or imprisonment for up to 30 years for U.S. citizens or residents who engage in illicit sexual conduct abroad.

For the purposes of this law, illicit sexual conduct includes commercial sex with anyone under 18, and all sex with anyone under 16. Previous US law was less strict, only punishing those having sex either in contravention of local laws OR in commerce (prostitution); but did not prohibit non-commercial sex with, for example, a 14 year-old if such sex was legal in the foreign territory.


This is the part of the law that makes it illegal for U.S. citizens to have sex with persons in foreign countries where the local laws regarding age of consent are different than ours.

 

[intothewoods]

On April 6, 2006, in United States v. Williams, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that one component of the PROTECT ACT, the "pandering provision" codified at 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(3)(B) of the United States Code, violated the First Amendment. The "pandering provision" conferred criminal liability on anyone who knowingly

advertises, promotes, presents, distributes, or solicits through the mails, or in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer, any material or purported material in a manner that reflects the belief, or that is intended to cause another to believe, that the material or purported material is, or contains (i) an obscene visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or (ii) a visual depiction of an actual minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct.

Right, and the argument is that distributors of the film Lolita, for example, could be liable.

 

[Betticus]

Right, and the argument is that distributors of the film Lolita, for example, could be liable.

I haven't seen it.

 

[myinnerslut]

this is rediculous. youd think lawmakers would have something better to do with thier time.

 

[Etoile]

I haven't seen it.

It's pretty much like the book. You HAVE read the book, haven't you?

 

[Betticus]

this is rediculous. youd think lawmakers would have something better to do with thier time.

One of the articles I read said that the only major difference between this law and the one it replaced that was deemed unconstitutional is that with this one the "miller test" has to be used to determine what is and is not obscene.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test

 

[FurryFury]

 

[Betticus]

That miller test is scary shit huh?

Your porn has to have "serious" artistic value that has to be determined by someone else who could be any kind of religious freak.

 

[Whisperly]

Good God. First of all, that's totally ridiculous. Secondly, if this little measure were to pass, who, pray tell, is going to enforce it? And how?

Jesus Christ, people are fucking stupid.

Completely agreed.

If it's consensual sex-play and they're both legal - who the hell cares how they get off? It's no one elses business really..

 

[twysted73]

Alright, the bus is almost packed up. Who's coming with me? We need to blow this puritanical popcicle stand.

 

[MasterPhoenix]

Thought Crime

Sad that its come to this...

Just remember "que tacit concentit" (S/He who is silent gives consent.)

On second thought, maybe that would encourage people on this board to rape mute people.... (just kidding folks! I'll be here all week)

Seriously... this is government do gooderism run amok...

 

[Daddyslilpet]

I honestly don't see how the government is going to know what I'm doing in my bedroom in my house, nor do I really think they are going to give a shit since I'm legally married to my husband and he's the one I'm doing these things with. We aren't involving anyone else in our relationship so therefore it is no one's business what we do on our property sexually.

 

[Marquis]

I remember when Max Hardcore got in trouble cause one of his videos featured a girl being fucked while she claimed to be 14. Ironically, the bitch was clearly in her 30's at least, and much older looking than some of the nearly pre-pubescent broads he often works with.

Honestly, I don't know how I feel about it.

 

[Evil_Geoff]

On April 6, 2006, in United States v. Williams, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that one component of the PROTECT ACT, the "pandering provision" codified at 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(3)(B) of the United States Code, violated the First Amendment. The "pandering provision" conferred criminal liability on anyone who knowingly

advertises, promotes, presents, distributes, or solicits through the mails, or in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer, any material or purported material in a manner that reflects the belief, or that is intended to cause another to believe, that the material or purported material is, or contains (i) an obscene visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or (ii) a visual depiction of an actual minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct.

This language is very similar to the wording in the drug trafficking laws that allows the government to bust the numb-nuts who is selling you baggies of oregano but claiming it's marijuana.

He's selling it as marijuana, you're buying it as marijuana, if a test later shows it isn't marijuana is pretty much irrelevant. Both buyer and seller had the INTENTION of illegal conduct. It's like "conspiracy to commit whatever" statutes. If you plan it, talk about it, intend to do, take steps to do it, you might as well go ahead because you can get hammered just the same.

The government is going to use that arguement (and long standing legal precedent) to argue that the law is constitutional.

The onus on the free speech/civil liberties side of the trial is going to be to show that the law truly infringes on otherwise legal conduct. Adults pretending to be minors? Ageplay? Infantilism? These fetishes and others are going to HAVE to be argued as normal sexual expression. The intent of the law (to hammer the fuck out of pedophiles and child pornographers) is laudable, but like most laws, the repercussions to regular, otherwise law abiding ADULT citizens who are fantasizing or pretending to be minors wasn't thought through at all.

Lets hope the ACLU side has persuasive arguements on this one.

 

[Trinique_Fire]

http://www.avn.com/index.cfm?objectid=F38755DF-D62A-0C35-B82D7ECD1F4BFB72

Child-Porn Law Under Review by Supreme Court
Free-speech advocates call laws too broad, unconstitutional.

According to this story, the current law makes ageplay and daddy/girl with age under legal adult for one of the partners punishable by up to twenty years in federal prison.


Any thoughts?

This is about all I can muster: