Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam
18 U.S.C. §2257A is on the books ... If it was ever indicted upon it would most likely be found unconstitutional ...
Anyway, Dost is a child porn specific test — in spite of what the D.O.J.'s rationalization is.
Rep. Weiner's images have the intent of lascivious adult behavior. If anything, Weiner is guilty of extremely bad taste (political suicide actually) but there is no law against bad taste.
Furthermore, the US Attorney's Office is not going to try to bring §2257A charges in this case and jeopardize §2257A's standing over this.
I think Greg Piccionelli was making muse, possibly jest, at the ludicrous nature of the law in question ...
Offered in discussion and not as legal advice
|
2257A
only applies to producers who create depictions that are:
* "intended for commercial distribution" {see §2257 (h)(1)(A)(i)}
* "created as a part of a commercial enterprise by a person who certifies to the Attorney General that such person regularly and in the normal course of business collects and maintains individually identifiable information regarding all performers, including minor performers, employed by that person, pursuant to Federal and State tax, labor, and other laws, labor agreements, or otherwise pursuant to industry standards, where such information includes the name, address, and date of birth of the performer." {the very next paragraph, §2257 (h)(1)(A)(ii)}
As such, I have a hard time seeing how 2257A could be applied in this instance. Not only was the depiction pretty clearly
not intended for "commercial distribution," my guess is that Weiner has affected nothing like the above referenced certification with the AG's office.... although if he
has registered with the AG's office as a producer of simulated sexually explicit content, I'd sure love to see the initial letter he sent them. (Perhaps it would start with "Hey guys,
just in case I ever screw up and post a picture of my erect penis to Twitter, I thought I'd better drop you this note, first....")
So far as I can tell, any prosecution of Weiner over his Twitter snafu would come up under the main body of 2257, under some other section of code completely outside of that section, or not at all.
My hunch? It will be "not at all." I just can't see the DOJ bringing charges in this situation under any section of law.
That practical assessment doesn't change the theoretical legal question, of course, and I agree with Barry that this is what Greg was actually addressing: Greg was talking about the way in which 2257 could, hypothetically, be applied in this situation, yes, but his more salient point was what that potential application
says about the nature, purpose, scope and sense (or lack thereof) of 2257 as it is written, and in light of the legislature's intent in passing the law in the first place.