Quote:
Originally Posted by EmporerEJ
That's a dangerous position to "stand on." It assumes one is guilty and must prove their innocence.
I'm sure you didn't mean it that way, but saying it casually like that makes it sound like it's just all the way it is. I for one, take a stand against that position.
We were never prosecuted for our Traci Lords materials, because we pulled them all. (And of course, promptly destroyed them....)
But that was a bad deal, some people did do time for it, and it was wrong. Her mother, who told the agent she was over 18, didn't get punished at all.
If someone was gonna be hung out to dry, (Not that I think anyone should have,) it should have been her mother.
|
The problem is in the way exclusionary laws work. You have to think of it the same way drinking laws are applied. It doesn't matter what fake ID was produced, it doesn't matter how old she LOOKED, it is all about reality. 2252 is pretty specific, there aren't any "she tricked me" exceptions or "she had a very adult looking rack".
If the same logic was applied to bars, then the club owners would run a bar at one end of the building and a fake ID maker at the other end.