Quote from: AScannerDarkly on January 26, 2009, 04:02:10 AMQuote from: E^D Crow on December 19, 2008, 06:41:33 PM
What does matter is that there was no actual crime taking place by simply owning the art, and if the courts rule against him, there will be the creation of a new, unjust law.
"new" as in 6 years ago?
US Supreme Court Protect Act of 2003:
Sec. 1466A. Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children
(a) IN GENERAL- Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly produces, distributes, receives, or possesses with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that–
(1)(A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and
(B) is obscene; or
(2)(A) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; and
(B) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value;
or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be subject to the penalties provided in section 2252A(b)(1), including the penalties provided for cases involving a prior conviction.
So the feds could bust in my door one day and arrest me for all the guro and other weird sh*t I have on my computer? That law is stupid. No one gets hurt when it is drawn and fictional. Books like Lolita are out there but the minute it gets turned into pictures people start freaking out.