On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 05:55:24PM -0700, Tim May wrote:
My main point was not to criminally prosecute those who pass laws _later_ found to be unconstitutional, when tested for the first time, but to prosecute those who keep passing the same unconstitutional laws. They know the laws "won't pass constitutional muster," as the lingo goes, but they get enough other career criminals to sign on anyway.
Yes. Leahy would fall into that category, actually. Congress enacted the "morphed" child porn ban in I recall 1996, and the Supreme Ct struck it down 7-2 as unconstitutional around a year ago. Within days Leahy, Hatch, and the other usual suspects reintroduced nearly-identical legislation: http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,52285,00.html
The original law, overturned on First Amendment grounds, outlawed a certain type of image that "appears to be" of a minor. The new COPPA bill refers to any computer-generated image that is "virtually indistinguishable from that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct."
We've seen the same silliness on campaign finance, on dial-a-porn restrictions (something like three rounds before the Supremes), and on CDA->COPA. -Declan