Quote:
|
Originally Posted by gonzo
Reprinted from mikesouth.com
Ya I'm Travelling Again But I Have Some Things I Want To Discuss:
Not the least of which is this whole 2257 thing. While I am four square against shooting anyone under the age of 18 (and even some over 18) It really bothers me that we can now be a criminal simply by not being able to prove we ARE NOT a criminal. It bothers me that the federal government has allowed the burden of proof to be shifted from the prosecution to the defense.
Shame Shame Shame on the FSC:
The Free Speech Coalition has led everyone to believe that if you are an FSC member you are exempted from 2257 prosecutions untill the lawsuit has been settled. Well Lo and Behold that is not entirely true. The exemption only applies if you are a "secondary producer". In other words if you shoot your own content, you are NOT protected, this is a small detail the FSC left out when they were lobbying for members.
Is The FSC Chickenshit?:
Now here is what I don't get. Why isn't the FSC challenging 2257 on grounds that would protect all of us from Congress, who has passed this law with the sole intent of shifting the burden of proof mentioned above. 2257 allows the feds to prosecute and convict a pornographer whose ONLY crime is not being able to prove he didn't commit a crime, and for those of you who attended public schools this is ass backwards from our long standing legal premise that the burden of proof is on the prosecution. Why isn't the FSC challenging the law at this level?
Why Burden of Proof Should Be on the Prosecution:
OK, so now porners have to prove they never committed a crime all in the name of keeping our shildren safe. Has anyone considered who will be next? Will beer sales or cigarette sales come next? must a store owner keep a record of every single alcohol or tobacco sale and prove that none were made to minors? And what about the privacy of performers, we have already had one major incidence of hundreds of performers information being placed on the net, including photos of passports and social security cards, everything a REAL criminal needs to steal an identity.
Bottom line is if the FSC wants respect they should be on the side of the entire industry, not just those who pay them, further they should do a better job, a first year law student could make the case that 2257 is way off base from a constitutional standpoint. This SUCKS...
|
Sadly in our country the government, and many of it's people, don't give a shit that the burden of proof that is SUPPOSED to be on the government is often by law trwisted on it's head and made to be on the defendant. The most blatant and abused of this kind of tactic is asset forfeiture laws in drug cases. There are TONS of abuses by the government where assests are seized and people are proven innocent of their supposed crime but yet then have to also prove their assets are not guilty of a crime too. Pisses me off to no ned. The asset forfeiture laws are corrupt as corupt can be and gives government entities an INCENTIVE to seize stuff no matter how flimsy their case is.