User talk:107.77.199.199

March 2021
Hello, I'm Plantsurfer. An edit that you recently made to Petunia seemed to be a test and has been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Plant surfer 10:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Protect Act
Hello, I am unsure if you are the same editor as the person who removed the part about the provisions of the PROTECT Act from Legal status of fictional pornography depicting minors a couple days ago, but at the risk of repeating myself, I don't think it would be a good idea to remove it from the article because, as you mentioned, the law is still on the books; I would add that the court in US v. Dean rejected the reasoning of the judge in US v. Handley. I think you mentioned that it has not been successfully brought against somebody with only fictional content; even still, that's no reason to remove it from the article. Accordingly, I reverted your edit, as I think it would be more beneficial to add more context rather than removing facts about the provisions of the PROTECT Act. Unfortunately, your edit summary was cut off, so I could not see all of it, but please discuss on the article's talk page if you think it is misleading. I am not a lawyer, and if I have misinterpeted something, or if there have been any new developments in case law, feel free to correct me on the talk page or add content to the article. Thank you for your edits though, and thank you for providing a detailed edit summary! Sandtalon (talk) 10:59, 20 July 2021 (UTC)