Quote:
Originally Posted by RawAlex
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.
|
Your argument is specious on both counts.
The first line of the law clearly states:
(a) Any person who—
(1) knowingly transports or ships in interstate or foreign commerce by any means including by computer or mails, any visual depiction, if—
(A) the producing of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and
(
such visual depiction is of such conduct;
(2) knowingly receives, or distributes, any visual depiction that has been mailed, or has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, or which contains materials which have been mailed or so shipped or transported, by any means including by computer, or knowingly reproduces any visual depiction for distribution in interstate or foreign commerce or through the mails, if—
(A) the producing of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and
(
such visual depiction is of such conduct;
Your argument fails.
The prosecution must PROVE that "you" KNOWINGLY performed these actions.
It should be noted that the ID available during the Traci Lord time is not what it is today. It is common for Government issued photo IDs now. A very high standard. We don't know the details of the ID provided back then, or how "closely" it was examined. She's also the one that possibly got it all started. So who knows what she said, or did to authorities?
And it is NOT the same as "the drinking laws." It is a much higher authority, namely Free speech. There must be a more powerful reason to limit it, as it is the foundation of our constitution.
The bar analogy is just silly. As a former retailer, I wouldn't want to do such a thing. What would be the point? You assume every bar owner is looking to break the law.