Changes

Talk:18 USC § 1470 (view source)

Revision as of 15:26, March 14, 2007

786 bytes added , 15:26, March 14, 2007

reply re: statute

Line 6: Line 6:

: "Knowingly" imports a criminal ''mens rea'' requirement of recklessness or higher, so I don't know if posting here would support a conviction. Andy's the lawyer though, so I'd love to know if I'm wrong on the ''mens rea'' thing. It'd help me on exams ;-)--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 11:13, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

+

:: "Knowingly" should be satisfied by posting a notice. If a criminal defendant wants to try to persuade a jury that he didn't see the notice on the Main Page, didn't see it in the Rules, didn't read the FAQ about how this site was founded, didn't read the stories about, didn't know that minors do use internet sites like this, and yet knew how to register and post obscene material, then he can make that argument. I'd expect it to take only about 30 seconds for a jury to reject that argument.

+

:: An increasing percentage of federal prosecutions is for obscenity over the internet, by the way. It's amazing to me why people think it's OK to do things over the internet that they would not do over the radio or in person.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:26, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Obscene material is not profanity ==

Aschlafly

Anthony, Irenaeus, Siteadmin, apieditor, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators

126,231

edits

Changes

Talk:18 USC § 1470 (view source)

Revision as of 15:26, March 14, 2007

Navigation menu

Search