Web porn must cross state lines, court says

PHOENIX -- A new federal appellate court ruling involving a Tucson man could throw roadblocks in the path of police and prosecutors trying to catch and convict people of sending child pornography over the Internet.

In a unanimous decision, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said people cannot be convicted of transporting such images unless there is evidence that the actual files crossed state lines. A file sent from and received within Arizona does not qualify.

I really dislike that the government is trying to bend the perception of jurisdictional boundaries by evoking negative emotions with something such as child pornography.

While I'm sure 99.999% of people (myself included) have a deep hatred for pedophiles. This shouldn't even be an issue. Obviously if it doesn't cross state lines, then it's a local matter.

I'm sick of the feds bending our emotions to overwhelm our common sense in regards to issues like this.
EDIT: Thank you to the poster, I forgot the news source: Source

News story of events.

It's an odd one. Are they saying that the packets which make up any material don't cross the state line even though chances are that it does?

-m0r

reply to post by m0r1arty


I think the issue was is that just because you are connected to the internet and capable of transmitting data across state lines, doesn't mean you have.

For instance being a Cox, AZ customer. There are easily half a million people I can contact online without my data even leaving the internal network, let alone state lines.

What if people are using TOR then?

I'm not sure how web porn is distributed but surely if it is illegal then distribution methods probably will be masked and take advantage of existing systems which will in many cases cross state lines.

Does that count as crossing the state line then?

The whole thing sounds weird and thought up by people who don't know anything about the net...

...Again a weird one.

-m0r

Originally posted by mryanbrown

PHOENIX -- A new federal appellate court ruling involving a Tucson man could throw roadblocks in the path of police and prosecutors trying to catch and convict people of sending child pornography over the Internet.

In a unanimous decision, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said people cannot be convicted of transporting such images unless there is evidence that the actual files crossed state lines. A file sent from and received within Arizona does not qualify.

I really dislike that the government is trying to bend the perception of jurisdictional boundaries by evoking negative emotions with something such as child pornography.

While I'm sure 99.999% of people (myself included) have a deep hatred for pedophiles. This shouldn't even be an issue. Obviously if it doesn't cross state lines, then it's a local matter.

I'm sick of the feds bending our emotions to overwhelm our common sense in regards to issues like this.
EDIT: Thank you to the poster, I forgot the news source: Source

edit on 8-11-2010 by mryanbrown because: Added source

Wait a minute. If some freak sends kiddie porn from Tucson to Phoenix via email, he's not guilty? But if he sends it to El Paso Texas, he is? WTF?

I mean WTF???

Child porn is FEDERAL offense in addition to state and local laws!

I hope the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals used a LOT of KY jelly, because they obviously have their heads up their asses.

reply to post by mydarkpassenger


No one said he isn't guilty. It's a matter of WHICH law he can be convicted under, and WHO has jurisdiction.

Just saw an update on this on the news, maybe I didn't read the article properly.

The news stated they must PHYSICALLY carry it across state lines. For I would assume federal jurisdiction of cross state distribution.

EDIT: Also curious why child porn is a federal matter and not local?

Originally posted by mryanbrown
reply to post by mydarkpassenger

 

No one said he isn't guilty. It's a matter of WHICH law he can be convicted under, and WHO has jurisdiction.

Just saw an update on this on the news, maybe I didn't read the article properly.

The news stated they must PHYSICALLY carry it across state lines. For I would assume federal jurisdiction of cross state distribution.

EDIT: Also curious why child porn is a federal matter and not local?

edit on 8-11-2010 by mryanbrown because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-11-2010 by mryanbrown because: (no reason given)

I think in most localities it is an offense also. These crazy judges are living in the stone-age - kiddie porn is kiddie porn, whether it crosses (physically on say a disk or data stick) or is broadcast on the internet.

reply to post by mydarkpassenger


Right, and once again. No one is saying it isn't illegal...

It's a matter of WHICH LAW the offense is under, and WHO has jurisdiction. They're saying it's illegal but the feds don't have jurisdiction, the local courts do. Why do you then assume that means it's legal?

Originally posted by mryanbrown
reply to post by mydarkpassenger

 

Right, and once again. No one is saying it isn't illegal...

It's a matter of WHICH LAW the offense is under, and WHO has jurisdiction. They're saying it's illegal but the feds don't have jurisdiction, the local courts do. Why do you then assume that means it's legal?

Because like 99% of the people on abovetopsecret, this person either didn't read, is very bad at reading, or simply doesn't understand what the hell is being said so they chime in with what ever cute little thought comes to mind first.