Regarding child pornography, AB of Pennsylvania wrote:
“2 yrs ago. I was accused of child porn. They took at least $7.000 worth of software and hardware and I never got any of it back. Can someone help me get it back? I am now charged with porn and thats it. I have not been sentenced yet. A few months I would guess. Thanks.”
The U.S. Supreme Court today warned purveyors of child pornography to beware, holding that the 2003 PROTECT Act constitutionally criminalizes promotion of such material.
In an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia, the court held 7-2 that “offers to provide or requests to obtain” child pornography are not protected by the First Amendment, even if no actual child pornography is involved in the proposed transaction.
Today, I posted another response to a comment on the Slate magazine site about the California Supreme Court decision on gay marriage. This Slate commentary thread is at:
http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/thread/1270594.aspx?ArticleID=2191530
A straight-forward reading of Article IV, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution, would seem to indicate that the anwer to this question is an unequivocal yes.
It isn’t.
I posted the following response to one of the comments on the Slate magazine site about the California Supreme Court decision on gay marriage. The Slate commentary is at:
http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/thread/1266656.aspx?View=Threaded&ArticleID=2191530
In the most important court decision upholding individual rights since the US Supremes struck down state prohibitions of interracial marriage, the California Supreme Court today banished California’s law against gay marriage.
I was recently asked, “If I have a medical marijuana card in California, how much marijuana can I legally possess?”
The short answer according to the federal government, despite California’s liberalized medical marijuana law, is none. As simple as that short answer is, however, it doesn’t really answer the question.
… then again, paid legal advice all too often isn’t worth what you pay for it, either, so you might as well get it for free if you can. I hope you will find my comments here worth at least what you pay for them.
This blog contains my comments about general legal issues and responses to specific inquiries which pique my interest. It also contains links to my other blogs, where I comment on matters of general interest and post some original writing and photography. Speaking of which, the header photo of the tanker sailing across a foggy San Francisco skyline is one I took during a recent visit to Sausalito.
Legal fineprint: Any and all comments here are offered solely for the purpose of providing general information about legal issues and should not be considered specific legal advice intended to be relied upon by any reader (doesn’t that sound just like a lawyer?). If you have a legal problem and need specific legal advice about that problem, you should consult with (and pay) a lawyer for that specific legal advice. Even if my comments here address your legal problem, before acting on anything I say, you should still consult with (and pay) a lawyer for specific legal advice about your problem.
By the way, I reserve the right to pick and choose the subjects about which I will comment and the questions which I will answer, to control the content of this blog by deleting any post which I find objectionable or inappropriate for any reason and to edit, modify and/or delete anything I post at any time for any reason.
On the other hand, I will often speak plainly at the risk of offending you or someone else and if I do, will likely not apologize. Which is another way of saying, if you’re not going to like the answer, don’t ask the question.
James T. Reilly, Attorney at Law, California State Bar No. 67254
Free Legal Advice Isn't Worth What You Pay For It ... 