On 1/2/06, Andreas Haugstrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 23:28:15 +0100, Stephanie Bryant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > time. Each subsequent offense is worth 10 years, and the rules were > > supposedly retroactive, meaning they could get you for not having > > documentation even before you were required to keep it. > > I'd like to call bullshit on that. Democracies have checks in place to > avoid retroactive legislation. As I refuse to believe the USA to have a > system silly enough to allow this kind of legislation I looked it up. And > indeed retroactive legislation is "Prohibited by Article I section 9 > (applying to federal law) and section 10 (applying to state law) of the > U.S. Constitution." > <URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retroactive_legislation >
Feel free, Andreas. Calling bullshit on it is exactly what the Free Speech Coalition's been doing since day 1. What you have to understand is that this was not a law that was passed by Congress. It's a change to the rules that an old law gave the DOJ the power to make. The rules change underwent only the barest amount of oversight, and now the system of checks and balances has to go to work to overturn it and show it to be unconstitutional. In the original rules, there could be a situation in which an underage actor appeared in a work and was later discovered to be underage (a la Traci Lords). Destroying copies of that work from the records-keeping files would be an offense worth 10 years in prison, but keeping a copy of that work would be a child pornography charge, also worth significant prison time. An exception was quickly articulated for such cases, but the original rules, as written, were terrible, draconian, and full of clauses to criminalize an otherwise legitimate industry. Oh, and the clause that will require independent webcam girls to publish their business addresses (usually also their private homes) on the Internet still stands, with the argument that nobody's been killed yet, so these women don't deserve the most basic privacy protection. This isn't FUD. It's what's happening. Nobody wants to cover it in the mainstream press, because the law in question has the word "underage" in it, so the most simplistic sound-byte impression is that if you oppose these rules, then you're in favor of child porn. That's the real FUD. --Stephanie -- Stephanie Bryant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Vlog: http://mortaine.blogspot.com Audioblog: http://bookramble.blogspot.com Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
