Difference between revisions of "Talk:18 USC § 1470"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(reply further) |
|||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
: P.S. to Jrssr5: I ''am'' a criminal lawyer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT) | : P.S. to Jrssr5: I ''am'' a criminal lawyer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :: He is, it's true. Asch, could you give me a cite for a similar case? I'm really curious... I'm taking Crim and I'd love to know how ''mens rea'' is constructed by a judge in a hypothetical case like this.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 11:42, 14 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
== Obscene material is not profanity == | == Obscene material is not profanity == | ||
Revision as of 15:42, March 14, 2007
There's some fun Commerce Clause jurisprudence on this statute, isn't there, I think one of the parties is X-Citement Video, but I can't find it in my briefs...--AmesG 23:37, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
Was that a pun? --Scrap 05:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
The statute says "knowingly transfer". I'm no lawyer but I think this means they have to intend the content be delivered directly to someone under the age of 16. Just posting it here, while wrong, probably doesn't meet the requirements of the code. Also, I'd consult with a criminal lawyer before posting threats of legal action. Jrssr5 11:04, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
- "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 ;-)--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.--Aschlafly 11:26, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
- P.S. to Jrssr5: I am a criminal lawyer.--Aschlafly 11:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
- He is, it's true. Asch, could you give me a cite for a similar case? I'm really curious... I'm taking Crim and I'd love to know how mens rea is constructed by a judge in a hypothetical case like this.--AmesG 11:42, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
Obscene material is not profanity
It refers to using mail to send X-rated materials to minors, not posting bad words on a free-use website.
- You're wrong. 18 USC 1470 is applied to the internet, and whether the website is "free-use" or not is irrelevant.--Aschlafly 00:46, 14 March 2007 (EDT)