----- Original Message ----- From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Brin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 9:34 AM Subject: Re: 'Virtual' Child Porn Act Ruled Unconstitutional
> At 10:13 AM 4/17/02 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > ><< The problem with the law was that it covered everything, and anything. > >Under the law shakespeare and the bible and the koran and films etc. ad > >nauseum could cause a person to be prosecuted. >> > > > >Showing his contempt for protecting rights, Rehnquist's dissent from the > >ruling said there was no need to invalidate the law on the grounds that it > >might be used to censor Shakespeare since there was no evidence that anyone > >had yet used it to censor Shakespeare. > > > >In other words, trust the prosecutors. But if we could trust prosecutors, we > >wouldn't need enumerated rights in the first place. > > It should be noted that this is actually a long-established legal principle > in the United States (not recalling off-hand if you are an American) that > you must have "standing" to sue. In other words, in order to file suit > against somebody in a Court you have to show that you have been > demonstrably harmed (otherwise, you are just wasting *everybody*'s time, > and a lot of taxpayer money.) Thus, Rehnquist is actually on very sound > legal grounds here - that if you can't demonstrate that there was even a > reasonable likelihood that the government was planning on prosecuting for > your current (or planned) speech, then you don't have a basis to sue. I think the reasonable liklihood is well established here in Texas. Elected officials, on the school board, have voted against having a textbook because it included a picture of a woman with a briefcase. Books like "Catcher in the Rye" have been banned from some libraries. Given that, the existance of one prosecurer who wants to curry favor with the religeous right by sueing is probable. But, it doesn't even have to be probable for their to be a detrimental effect. Even the possibility of it happening is enough to make a corporation think twice about supporting a project. As you should see elsewhere, I'm strongly opposed to child pornography. But, it doesn't mean that I favor clearcutting the forest as a means of finding a dangerous preditor. Dan M. Dan M.
