My answer to slashdot editor:
Paul, My article is still pending on slashdot.com
Child porn law recently ruled partly unconstitutional by
Minnesota Supreme court. In old version defendant could defend himself by proving that age people in photos was over 18. Government should not prove this.
Prosecutors used this statement: "we looked at photos and it is clearfor us there are underage persons in photos".
I looked at TV ad yesterday, and they showed dancing real cats and tigers, sharks jumping on their tails, cars driving on two wheels, full of kids, and so on. Looks very real, unless you understand this is impossible in real life.This is modern technology.
The only way to prove this is to identify those people, find them in real world. This is impossible to do in most cases. So according the law I could not defend myself. This was not harmless error, as supreme court ruled. When section 8 is unconstitutional now, all child porn law make no any sense. Only if they found real people from the photos they could convict. In real world they will ignore this, I am sure.
I talked to J D recently. This is lawyer on this case. He is from Minnesota top defence lawyers. He charge $ 500 per hour. What I wrote in my article is his opinion too. You are not lawyer, and I am not a lawyer, so please open discussion.
Overturning any child porn law is possible, as Minnesota Supreme court decision shows. There are too many unconstitutional things, that even ordinary person
can understand this.
Even in child porn case we should respect constitution, written more than 200 years ago.
Otherwise, everything is possible. Law enforcements may be very dangerous, as history shows us in USSR, and Hitler Germany.