FSC Tries Their Hand At Comedy?

Maj. Stress · 2005-08-05, 02:03 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.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

2005-08-05, 02:03 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.