Post a New Reply
Reply to thread: KEY point
Username:
Post Subject:
Post Icon:no icon
Your Message: Smilies [get more]
Post Options:	Disable Smilies: disable smilies from showing in this post.
Thread Subscription: Specify the type of notification and thread subscription you'd like to have to this thread. (Registered users only)	Do not subscribe to this thread Subscribe without receiving any notification of new replies Subscribe and receive email notification of new replies Subscribe and receive PM notification of new replies

Attachments
Your allocated attachment usage quota is Unlimited.
	New Attachment:

Thread Review (Newest First)

Posted by admin - 05-19-2025, 10:18 PM

The Charge is one count for one image that the state is claiming is child porn. Agent O'Sullivan who is the FBI forensic expert claimed it was computer-generated. In Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition (which I was somewhat part of) the US Supreme Court in 2002 ruled that computer-generated images were not only legal but constitutional protected speech.  Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition | Oyez In 2003 the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that virtual images including computer-generated images was legal and constitutional protected speech. PEOPLE v. ALEXANDER (2003) | FindLaw