PDA

View Full Version : US Man Faces Online Porn Charges

NichePass Jen
2007-07-25, 03:23 PM
This is really unsettling. I can't really figure out what he did wrong except for not actually putting the custodian of records on the DVDs themselves. But is that necessarily a case for obscenity? |huh

http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/20070725/tc_pcworld/135057;_ylt=AnpJyS05SVaTS3wjOCjn2S9k24cA
Toby
2007-07-25, 03:45 PM
This is an obscenity charge, it has nothing to do with 2257 or custodian of records. The DOJ is saying he distributed obscene material.
NichePass Jen
2007-07-25, 06:32 PM
I know that, that's why I'm confused. It says he was charged with obscenity charges and then it goes on to say that the reason was because he didn't label the DVDs with the Custodian of Records. So what does that have to do with obscenity?

To me it just sounds like they were out to throw any charges against him they could to see which one would stick.
tickler
2007-07-25, 06:40 PM
Don't see all the details in the link.

A few months ago the DOJ burned themselves because they were caught also distributing "obsence" materials that they were trying to bring charges against some company(Castle???) for doing.

Something about bankruptcy management, and distributing the same titles. Do as I say, not as I do!|club|
Toby
2007-07-25, 06:56 PM
I know that, that's why I'm confused. It says he was charged with obscenity charges and then it goes on to say that the reason was because he didn't label the DVDs with the Custodian of Records. So what does that have to do with obscenity?

To me it just sounds like they were out to throw any charges against him they could to see which one would stick.I just read it again, the labelling charges are additional charges, separate from the obscenity charges.
Useless
2007-07-25, 06:58 PM
I know that, that's why I'm confused. It says he was charged with obscenity charges and then it goes on to say that the reason was because he didn't label the DVDs with the Custodian of Records. So what does that have to do with obscenity?That's your point of confusion. It doesn't say that. It says he's being charged...
with four counts of using an interactive computer service to sell and distribute obscene films on DVD, two counts of using a common carrier to distribute obscene DVDs and two counts of failing to label sexually explicit DVDs with the name and location of the custodian of recordsThey aren't telling us the particulars of what was obscene within the content of his DVDs. It's most likely nasty shit.
Tinkerbell
2007-07-26, 12:24 AM
Wow, that is kind of scary. I wonder, is there really reason to be paranoid about what it is we do?
ivo68
2007-07-27, 04:29 AM
I know that, that's why I'm confused. It says he was charged with obscenity charges and then it goes on to say that the reason was because he didn't label the DVDs with the Custodian of Records. So what does that have to do with obscenity?

To me it just sounds like they were out to throw any charges against him they could to see which one would stick.
Some details are missing in the article. I've red somewhere else he distributed scat movies.
NichePass Jen
2007-07-27, 10:44 AM
After re-reading the article, I realized there were multiple counts against him and I became un-confused. LOL

And if he was indeed distributing scat movies then it's less disturbing that he's being indicted. I just assumed it was straightforward hetero porn.