Wednesday, April 18, 2007

partly unconstitutional law

This is explanation why it was impossible to fight child porn charge in Minnesota.
Minnesota supreme court reviewed recently child porn law.
They declared unconstitutional only part of law.
I read Supreme court decision at

They declared unconstitutional only subsection 8 which said
"Subd. 8. Affirmative defense. It shall be an affirmative defense to charge of violating this section that the pornographic work was produced using only persons who were 18 years or older."

Government must prove age people in porn pictures, not adefendant, according with this decision.
Supreme court said that this was harmless error, because it was clearjust by looking at faces these were minors. This sound like 'we all know what child porn is, are we?'
Modern computer technology can create any faces and cut and paste to adult porn.
No computer expert can tell the difference ( US Supreme court struckdown child porn law in 2002 based on this argument )
Arguments by court looks unprofessional, there was no real computer forensic specialists and experts. Also why state should not prove there was not spyware, porn pop ups, trojan horses. Too many holes in Supreme court decision. I am not a lawyer, but it is clear for me.
This is very grey area of existing law. Judges just do not understandhow computer works, and that everything is possible in digital world.


Fima Fimovich said...

i invite comments, because this is terrible situation in Justice system, and nobody seems care.
Very soon they tell us that black is same with white

Fima Fimovich said...

America and Britain have both intentionally corrupted justice itself, and there is no legitimate explanation I can see for anyone to have done so, it is a prime tenet of justice in both nations that a person enters court with the presumption of innocence and to be given a fair trial. The laws have
been specifically engineered to deny the right to the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial. What kind of people would do that? I would allege it is explicitly criminal not to conduct a fair trial.

Judges may not understand enough about computers to question, but in any circumstance, and especially where the sentences are so high, if a judge is not competent to conduct a fair trial, if he cannot discharge his duties, he
must discharge himself. Computers have been around for some time, it is not privileged knowledge to know that the user is not in control, failure after malice on the internet is routine. Microsoft have been hacked, some of the most secure military locations in America have been hacked by children, you do not need to be an expert to know that the absurd assertions put out by
the FBI and other federal agencies are dishonest and whilst journalists may
lap them up, to allow them in a court rooms around the land is sinister.

A government expert in such a trial in the UK tried to repeatedly assert what couldn't happen, only to be confronted with the fact it had happened to the judge. I would suggest that judge was honest and a case built on lies collapsed. A fair trial is based on a case where the prosecution establishes
the facts beyond doubt using legally admissable evidence, a witch hunt of the medieval kind relies on an accusation and denial of the right to a fair

America is a nation without respect for justice and yet it is empowered with the death penalty. History will question the silence of so many in the face of such attrocity and in some case the zeal.