I was messing around with the Google "uncle sam" search feature and searched under title 18 section 2257 and this document came up. Here is just part of what it contains.
" Obscenity Investigations and Prosecutions
The U.S. Attorneys' Manual states:
Prosecution of large scale distributors of obscene material who realize substantial income from their multi-state operations also is encouraged. Prosecution priority should be given to cases in which there is evidence of involvement by known organized crime figures. However, prosecution of cases involving relatively small distributors can have a deterrent effect and would dispel any notion that obscenity distributors are insulated from prosecution if their operations fail to exceed a predetermined size or if they fragment their business into small-scale operations. Therefore, prosecution of such distributors also may be appropriate on a case-by-case basis. 5
The Manual further requires that substantial deference be given to the factors set forth in Miller v. California in determining the viability of potential obscenity cases. Officials within the FBI's Violent Crimes Unit and the Criminal Division's CEOS stated that because Miller v. California requires an assessment of community standards in determining obscenity, the Department relies more on the states and localities to investigate and prosecute obscenity cases involving individuals. The FBI and the CEOS also stated that because much of the obscene material is distributed over the Internet, it is difficult to identify a case's jurisdiction and therefore which community standards should be applied. They stated that the Department focuses its resources on investigating and prosecuting obscenity cases involving major producers and interstate and foreign distributors of obscene material. In addition, they stated that the Department investigates and prosecutes obscenity cases where organized crime or other crimes such as money laundering, extortion, and trafficking in women are involved. According to the FBI, since 1994 it has investigated a total of 58 obscenity cases, 12 of which were related to organized crime. "
It also states:
"Pornographic websites are prolific and international; on-line predators and pornography traffickers can easily mask their location and identity. According to FBI officials, the IINI has experienced difficulties in keeping up with rapidly changing technology that allows criminals to avoid detection. Another problem in these investigations is the lack of a requirement mandating the length of time that an Internet service provider must retain its records. While the larger Internet service providers are cooperative, thousands of smaller Internet service providers, when subpoenaed, report that their records already have been deleted. Perpetrators of child pornography crimes often are savvy to these recordkeeping weaknesses and use smaller Internet service providers with fewer controls. "
Here's the full report This was written by our inspector General Glenn A. Fine to Congressman Frank R. Wolf.
Notice that they only mention Miller v. California and no mention at all of the sundance case! Why do you think that is?
It looks like they'll go after small guys to make a point and scare everyone. Unfortunately this document contains a lot of info about C()*P as well. I don't know why they lump all porn with C()*P. The statistics of cases brought before the court and the number that have been rejected, or cases lost is stagering. I also find the number of guilty pleas where people just gave up interesting.
What do you guys think? Does this give you some insight as to where they are going to go with this?
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Lee
Bookmarks