User talk:Nope01

Great catch
I didn't even notice this. I think whoever added that is thinking of something in the UK? They definately need to make a distinction for which are less inclusive, since lots are incredibly inclusive in what they outlaw. Tyciol (talk) 23:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think there is an older law which specifically does say there must be a real minor involved. The PROTECT Act actually does seem to try to outlaw purely virtual materials though. (Correct me if I'm wrong.. I don't feel like checking right now). Read my response on the discussion page btw... another thing that should be noted about the Handley case. It is quite obvious the prosecution was unaware that the PROTECT Act's blanket ban on virtual materials was already void as soon as it was signed into law. They at first charged him with the sections which were already deemed unconstitutionally vague... why obscenity laws haven't also been ruled too vague I don't know but at least the U.S. Supreme Court has some good reason left in them. The idea that this kind of material should be treated the same as real child pornography is completely absurd and I'm astounded at the Canadian rulings on this matter. Also, I doubt U.S. obscenity laws have much life left in them... all it will take is a couple of Supreme Court justices dying off and being replaced by more liberal ones for obscenity laws to die the horrible death they deserve. The Miller test is a truly dubious legal construct and you really just can't know what is obscene or what is not. Basically what the U.S. courts have done to try to satisfy both the free speech people and the anti-porn crusaders is to have just made the law regarding the matter completely ambiguous.Nope01 (talk) 12:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, what they're doing to satisfy anti-porn crusaders has real consequences for Americans, I want to make that clear so long as obscenity exists in this vague form. Canada's definately confusing. lol. Thank you for adding back 'in the US' because as I noted, it's at the end of the country section so I don't want it interpreted as applying to all countries. This is an international incident and requires consultation, please don't just delete it. Tyciol (talk) 14:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)