Strong Dissent in Porn-Related Search Case

[PornoDoggy]

Okay, so the article tells me that the majority may right on this one - but I'm using a most un-legal rule of thumb - common sense. The domain name alone suggests/implies illegal content.

It kind of depends on where they are going to go with this. If, as the Federal Prostitu, er, Prosecutor is correct and there were "...other factors, combined with membership in the site..." justifying the warrant, then I don't really see much of a problem.

On the other hand ... if some Bush Appointee with a direct pipeline to Gawdamighty (and an eye on an open Congressional seat) siezes upon one illegal image on an otherwise legal website to go on multiple fishing expeditions, then there are serious problems.

[TheEnforcer]

Originally Posted by PornoDoggy

Okay, so the article tells me that the majority may right on this one - but I'm using a most un-legal rule of thumb - common sense. The domain name alone suggests/implies illegal content.

It kind of depends on where they are going to go with this. If, as the Federal Prostitu, er, Prosecutor is correct and there were "...other factors, combined with membership in the site..." justifying the warrant, then I don't really see much of a problem.

On the other hand ... if some Bush Appointee with a direct pipeline to Gawdamighty (and an eye on an open Congressional seat) siezes upon one illegal image on an otherwise legal website to go on multiple fishing expeditions, then there are serious problems.

What he said!!

Good post PD.