Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam
This has everything do do with to do with sex trafficking and marketing/advertising prostitution over the Internet.
It has nothing to do with copyright, intellectual property, tubes or any of your agendas.
As long as "porn" remains as an object that is a speech issue, with first amendment protections, the courts *should* not infer any meaning towards what is precedented legal conduct.
'trafficking' from what I see, is a criminal and territorial issue in the USA. The dictionary and legal meaning is not the same IMO.
|
I think you're overlooking how laws are utilized past their initial intention.
Remember the 2257 raids? I do.
Raids over checking paperwork to "save the children"
But you think this bill will be used strictly for sex trafficking in the strictest sense
