use every available tool to menace crypto users.
NYT, quoting a Supreme Court member on police use of legislative language:
"They will take it as far as they can."
They have absolutely no scruples, often.
In the AA BBS case, the Feds PURPOSELY PULLED graphics legal in California
into hick Tennessee, and succeeded in jailing the CA owner.
Wow. The Feds must have been drooling when Congress passed the CDA.
In addition, they sent UNSOLICITED real child ****o to the owner, and
charged
him with possession of child ****o.
No code of ethics or conduct.
No scruples.
Predatory pinheads.
----
* "WHITE HOUSE IS SET TO EASE ITS STANCE ON INTERNET SMUT"
* The New York Times, By John M. Broder, June 16 1997
*
* Administration officials, in a draft re****t dated June 4 1997, have
been
* quietly fa****oning a new communications policy that leaves most
regulation
* of the Internet to industry and people themselves, due to an expected
* repudiation of the Communications Decency Act by the Supreme Court.
*
* Reno's people, [beating the Drum of War] told the Supreme Court "the
* Internet was a revolutionary threat to children rendering irrelevant
all
* prior efforts" to protect them from ****ography.
*
* "We all knew at the time it was passed that the Communications Decency
Act
* WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL," said an anonymous senior government official
[yea
* anonymity!].
*
* "This was purely politics."
*
* "How could you be against a bill limiting
* the display of ****ography to children?"
Thank you once again, Free World Leaders,
for that intelligent political discourse.
On 6/26/97, CDA was ruled unconstitutional 7-2 by the Supreme Court.
----
Predatory behavior.
* The New York Times, April 19, 1992
*
* The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling, overturned the conviction of a
* Nebraska farmer on charges of receiving child ****ography. The only
* ****ography the government found was the one i
|
