|
|
|
#15 | |
|
Took the hint.
|
The proposed tax bill also includes some things that have been invalidated by the courts any number of times already (see COPA, COPAII):
Quote:
As a side note, I think if you look at most of the recent "anti-porn" laws that have either been passed or floated, you will see that they are intentionally including wording and / or concepts that have been shot down in court. I have a theory on this: They know that the laws will be invalid on their face. They know that the wording as proposed would never stand up in court. The intention isn't to regulate our industry, it is to look good for voters that "you tried something but them damn courts cut us down". The law makers look good with their more conservative voters, and they don't get the backlash of the more liberal voters who want to see porn. Why else would the new DOJ regulation include, to the word, regulations that were already shot down in Reno v. Sundance? More importantly, it is the words that the court specifically used to shoot reno down. Why else did Ashcroft take COPAII back into court for another run rather than work on a new bill? It isn't about willing the "war on porn", it's about appearing to be doing something while in fact doing nothing, and tying us all up in legal knots while they are doing it. Alex |
|
|
|
|
|
|