@firefly,
DAVID wrote:the logic of it indicates to me that both passengers
woud be (figuratively speaking) cellmates for similar federal crimes:
looking at child porn and PRODUCING child porn (after looking at it).
firefly wrote:Well, the logic of it indicates to me that one passenger was committing a crime, and the other passenger photographed the commission of a crime--i.e. photographing the man watching images on his laptop.
By no stretch should the passenger who took the photo be charged with producing, or even re-producing, child pornography.
but, Firefly
: the statute explicitly commands that
no one
make images of the prohibited description
It does
NOT say that if u r our pal and u help the government out, then u r legal.
HOWEVER, I certainly expect that the prosecutor
will discriminate
adopting the philosophy that u have suggested. That is
extra-statutory and discriminatory.
THAT means that we will be subject to unwritten and
subjective criminal law
as to what is OK and what conduct will land u in federal prison;
in other words: that interpretation will serve as a
precedent
(as Bill's case of real estate fraud) for subordination of logic to emotion.
If
IN LAW we accept the subordination of logic to
emotion,
then the American Republic has been relinquished and repudiated,
replaced by the emotions of those who are politically correct.
This
accelerates the
inevitable momentum toward our grandchildren
becoming the Borg, as distinct from individual freedom.
Firefly:
how can we
POSSIBLY believe that we live in a
FREE Republic
if criminal law is
subjective, per the whim of criminal prosecutors or the police????
In other words, if government ultimately decides: "well that 's OK,
because that did not gross us out and it
HELPED us in our emotional desires
" ??????
firefly wrote:That is not the intention of the law, nor was it the intention of the passenger who took the photo and immediately passed it on to the police so they could investigate the situation.
OK, lemme get this straight, because it has been quite a long time
since last I read the statute: are u saying that it addresses
itself to defendants'
INTENTIONS, as distinct from their objective conduct????
I don 't remember it that way, but I coud be rong.
firefly wrote:If a store security video captures images of a child being sexually assaulted, and that documents the commission of a crime that leads to the arrest of the perpetrator involved, you would not charge the store owner with production of child pornography either.
Maybe. I don 't remember how it addresses automatic photography.
Do u represent that if such a camera recorded people below voting age
making love to one another and if a security guard saw it on the video tape
then that woud not violate the statute??? Maybe not. I 'm not sure.
How the US Attorney woud address the matter is a distinct matter altogether
than the statute itself.
I think this is an interesting question
as to what citizens are free to do, Firefly; what do u think of it:
if 2 citizens below voting age begin making love to one another
and a store security guard
sees it happening
(without interference,
not on store property) on his watch:
that is perfectly legal,
but if the store security camera records it and he sees it on the tape,
then that is
a felony, for years in federal prison ?????
firefly wrote:Do you really see the D.A.'s as being completely mindless, and without judgment,
in how the law is applied in such situations?
Not necessariliy, no, but I see them as being free to apply
their
personal emotions in the decision of whether or not to apply the statute.
That is a very dramatic repudiation of the concept
that ours is a government of
LAWS, not of men, descending into subjectivity.
I do not see how we can consider ourselves to be
FREE secure citizens
if laws are applied on a subjective basis of who is our pal and who is not.
If I were a US Attorney or a D.A., I 'd apply statutes mechanically,
to everyone, showing favor nor preferences to no one,
but treating everyone equally
without discrimination.
I woud not consider myself to have been endowed
with authority to be a SUPER-legislature, amending statutes
nor deciding who is right or rong without judicial process.
David
<-- holding my breath
