US Man Faces Online Porn Charges
 

This is really unsettling. I can't really figure out what he did wrong except for not actually putting the custodian of records on the DVDs themselves. But is that necessarily a case for obscenity? |huh

http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/2007...wjOCjn2S9k24cA

This is an obscenity charge, it has nothing to do with 2257 or custodian of records. The DOJ is saying he distributed obscene material.

I know that, that's why I'm confused. It says he was charged with obscenity charges and then it goes on to say that the reason was because he didn't label the DVDs with the Custodian of Records. So what does that have to do with obscenity?

To me it just sounds like they were out to throw any charges against him they could to see which one would stick.

Don't see all the details in the link.

A few months ago the DOJ burned themselves because they were caught also distributing "obsence" materials that they were trying to bring charges against some company(Castle???) for doing.

Something about bankruptcy management, and distributing the same titles. Do as I say, not as I do!|club|

I just read it again, the labelling charges are additional charges, separate from the obscenity charges.

That's your point of confusion. It doesn't say that. It says he's being charged...
They aren't telling us the particulars of what was obscene within the content of his DVDs. It's most likely nasty shit.

Wow, that is kind of scary. I wonder, is there really reason to be paranoid about what it is we do?

Some details are missing in the article. I've red somewhere else he distributed scat movies.

After re-reading the article, I realized there were multiple counts against him and I became un-confused. LOL

And if he was indeed distributing scat movies then it's less disturbing that he's being indicted. I just assumed it was straightforward hetero porn.