Greenguy's Board - View Single Post

Maj. Stress · 2005-08-05, 01:03 AM

Kaplan also argued that between the opinion in the 1994 case of American Library Association v. Reno, Congress' inclusion in the PROTECT Act of 2003 of changes to the wording of the 2257 law, plus its requirement in that Act that the Attorney General report to it, one year after the Act's passage, of the number of Justice Department investigations of adult companies 2257 records and the prosecutions that resulted therefrom, the totality of those events essentially overruled the 10th Circuit's opinion in Sundance. Therefore, he claimed, the Justice Department was free to interpret the wording of "produces" in the 2257 statute to include both "primary" and "secondary" producers.
This idiot is comparing apples to oranges. Things are looking up for our side.

2005-08-05, 01:03 AM	#2
Maj. Stress Progress rarely comes in buckets, it normally comes in teaspoons Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Dark Side Of Naboo Posts: 1,289	Kaplan also argued that between the opinion in the 1994 case of American Library Association v. Reno, Congress' inclusion in the PROTECT Act of 2003 of changes to the wording of the 2257 law, plus its requirement in that Act that the Attorney General report to it, one year after the Act's passage, of the number of Justice Department investigations of adult companies 2257 records and the prosecutions that resulted therefrom, the totality of those events essentially overruled the 10th Circuit's opinion in Sundance. Therefore, he claimed, the Justice Department was free to interpret the wording of "produces" in the 2257 statute to include both "primary" and "secondary" producers. This idiot is comparing apples to oranges. Things are looking up for our side.