Hi Stanton. Duncan asked:
Didn't the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decide that the transport and sale provisions (unknowing posession) of the federal kiddie porn law were unconstitutional? Wouldn't a warning like yours risk converting unknowing to knowing posession.
The case to which Duncan is referring is U.S. v. X-Citement Video, Inc., decided last December in Pasadena, CA. The Ninth District Court didn't hold that the transport and sale provisions of the federal child porn statute were unconstitutional. What it did hold was that the statute was unconstitutional in that it did not require knowledge by the prosecuted individual of the age of the depicted youth. The court was clear to distinguish the lack of a knowledge requirement of the age of the depicted youth (which was unconstitutional) from the lack of knowledge that the files were sent (in this case mailed, which the court held was not really an issue.) My warning to sysops simply said that these files were listed on a federal indictment, so the "lack of knowledge of the age of the depicted people" defense remains -- I did not identify the people depicted as being under the age of 18. (I couldn't have done so -- I haven't seen the files. I was only passing on the info contained on the indictment.) In addition, provisions of a federal statute are not officially unconstitutional in all jurisdictions until the U.S. Supreme Court declares them to be so. (In other words, the court's decision is only binding on the 9th Circuit.) Shari P.S. Say hi to the 'punks for me. I really enjoyed the list, but the volume was just prohibitive. -- -=> mech@eff.org <=- Stanton McCandlish Electronic Frontier Foundation Online Activist & SysOp NitV-DC BBS 202-232-2715, Fido 1:109/? IndraNet 369:111/1, 14.4V32b 16.8ZyX