Quote:
Originally Posted by EmporerEJ
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—
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.
|
First off, don't misread the law or read too much into it. "Knowingly" is often negated by "willfully being ignorant about". Shooting naked girls and only asking for one ID, or asking for no ID at all could be considered being willfully ignorant, which creates the knowingly. There are reasons why you take TWO pieces of ID (not one), making it harder for someone to pull a fast one. Not taking ID or being slack in checking ID doesn't cut it, ignorance is not a defence.
Now that GGW producers have been contacted by the lawyer, I cannot see how Joe Francis can run the video, as he it would appear he would be knowing.
Free Speech is only one part of the deal, attempting to toss all of this under the free speech rug is laughable. The bar example holds very clear - you have the right of lawful assembly, and save for the time of prohibition, you can legally purchase and consume booze in a licensed establishment. The right of assembly applies to all, the legality of drinking is limited to those of age for that state. Your right of assembly isn't infringed by the liquor laws. In the same manner, 2252 doesn't infringe or obstruct your rights to distribute porn, it only limits which customers and which performers may legally appear. Only adults may appear in the porn, and only adults may purchase the porn.
Minors face all sorts of restrictions by law that do not infringe their constitutional rights, and this is one of them, no different from being block for entering cars or buying cigarettes. In both of those cases, the adult providing (pandering, I guess) to the minor would be in serious trouble. Why would the porn business by any different?
Do you think we should all be accepting of driver's licenses made out to McLovin?