01-30-2025, 06:26 PM
(This post was last modified: 02-04-2025, 02:29 AM by admin.
Edit Reason: Corrections on wording
)
Anonymus Fluhre wrote:
" Computer generated cp is illegal. There was already a case about that retard. Fuck off and die already."
I don't what case they are referring to, but I thinks United States v Williams US Supreme Court 2008. If that is the case they are reading it wrong. US v Williams has to do the "pandering" section of the PROTECT ACT. Williams was pandering material what was and wasn't real child porn as REAL CHILD PORN. it had to do with possession or distributing virtual child porn. If you go online and pander virtual child porn as real child porn you will be arrested (that what the case about) "The Supreme Court reasoned that there is no First Amendment protection for offers to engage in illegal transactions, and that banning "the collateral speech that introduces such material into the child-pornography distribution network" does not in fact criminalize a "substantial amount of protected speech."
Some noted info
" The Court further stated that 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(3)(B) would not be construed to punish the solicitation or offering of "virtual" (computer generated/animated) child pornography, thus comporting with the holding of Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002)." (18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(3)(B) is the pandering law, which again is what the case was about)
"In keeping with Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002), The Court stated that "an offer to provide or request to receive virtual child pornography is not prohibited by the statute. A crime is committed only when the speaker believes or intends the listener to believe that the subject of the proposed transaction depicts real children. It is simply not true that this means 'a protected category of expression [will] inevitably be suppressed,' post, at 13. Simulated child pornography will be as available as ever."
" Computer generated cp is illegal. There was already a case about that retard. Fuck off and die already."
I don't what case they are referring to, but I thinks United States v Williams US Supreme Court 2008. If that is the case they are reading it wrong. US v Williams has to do the "pandering" section of the PROTECT ACT. Williams was pandering material what was and wasn't real child porn as REAL CHILD PORN. it had to do with possession or distributing virtual child porn. If you go online and pander virtual child porn as real child porn you will be arrested (that what the case about) "The Supreme Court reasoned that there is no First Amendment protection for offers to engage in illegal transactions, and that banning "the collateral speech that introduces such material into the child-pornography distribution network" does not in fact criminalize a "substantial amount of protected speech."
Some noted info
" The Court further stated that 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(3)(B) would not be construed to punish the solicitation or offering of "virtual" (computer generated/animated) child pornography, thus comporting with the holding of Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002)." (18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(3)(B) is the pandering law, which again is what the case was about)
"In keeping with Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002), The Court stated that "an offer to provide or request to receive virtual child pornography is not prohibited by the statute. A crime is committed only when the speaker believes or intends the listener to believe that the subject of the proposed transaction depicts real children. It is simply not true that this means 'a protected category of expression [will] inevitably be suppressed,' post, at 13. Simulated child pornography will be as available as ever."