Wow. Just wow.

[fictional]

The puritannical, barbaric, and unsophisticated nature of this country and its laws never cease to amaze me.

Arrested? For this? Really? Really?!

Comments

Re: excuse me while I tl;dr at you

[kayliemalinza.livejournal.com]

Here's a PDF of Gritzner's decision, if you're interested (http://www.iasd.uscourts.gov/iasd/opinions.nsf/55fa4cbb8063b06c862568620076059d/20a96a77c04347ed86257480006ae8c5/$FILE/Handley.pdf).

Re: excuse me while I tl;dr at you

[demotu.livejournal.com]

Not being adept in legalese, this means that the case is still going on but he can't be prosecuted under this Miller thingy? What's left to prosecute him under?

Re: excuse me while I tl;dr at you

[kalichan.livejournal.com]

I think what it means is it shouldn't be prosecuted under the PROTECT act, (which is all about "child pornography") but now can only be prosecuted under the Miller test, which is just about general pornography.

THE WHOLE THING IS SO STUPID.

Re: excuse me while I tl;dr at you

[kayliemalinza.livejournal.com]

The article explains it in non-legalese. What the judge ruled as constitutionally infirm are a few sections-- not the whole thing-- of the PROTECT act, a law concerning child porn (at least in part. Basically, the sections say that you can be prosecuted for owning a drawing, sculpture, etc. that has "what appears to be" a minor engaging in sexual activity. E.G., ponderosa's bishounen Harry getting sucked off by Snape (the materials Handley is being investigated for are yaoi manga, so the same problem with cultural differences apply-- Japanese hentai portrays lithe, hairless people who are understood to be overage, at least in Japan.)

Because of Judge Gritzner's decision that those sections of the PROTECT act are constitutionally infirm, Handley cannot be prosecuted for possession of child porn. However, he can be prosecuted for possession of "obscene materials." Whether or not the materials are obscene is determined by the Miller test: "(a) whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."


I just clicked over to get a link from my earlier comment and realized Kali had already responded to you, albeit more briefly. I'll post this comment anyway in case, um, you wanted to waste 2 more minutes of your time?


I think my comment notifications are lagging. :(

Re: excuse me while I tl;dr at you

[kalichan.livejournal.com]

My comment notifications are also made of fail today. Sigh.