QUOTE(thekohser @ Sun 2nd May 2010, 1:35pm)
Meanwhile, why are we jumping to the most dramatic of possible conclusions?
Wouldn't it make more sense that, if the FBI finds the images to be in violation of 18 USC 1466A, that their guidance to the WMF would be to take the images down, or otherwise face prosecution?
No, that's not how violations of the law are supposed to work. You don't get a warning the first time you commit a felony and a request to cease future criminal activity.
QUOTE(thekohser @ Sun 2nd May 2010, 1:35pm)
I don't think the FBI would play the sort of brinksmanship game where the first move is a raid on New Montgomery Street, and Sue Gardner and Michael Snow being led off in handcuffs. The first move would more likely be a warning of some sort. Then it would be the (predictable) response of the WMF to refuse to do anything about the smut.
I'm sure the WMF would remove the images if they got that warning. In fact, I'm sure Godwin would have them removed (quietly, by making some sort of "strong suggestion" to someone with the proper authority) if he thought they were in violation.
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 2nd May 2010, 1:33pm)
QUOTE(anthony @ Sun 2nd May 2010, 2:14pm)
I'm sorry, but that's a scary thought. I'm in full support of child porn laws. But this is not a child porn law, it's an obscenity law. And obscenity laws are effectively thoughtcrimes.
Why is an obscenity law a thoughtcrime? A thoughtcrime is essentially private, yes? How is public obscenity private?
The WMF's actions may be public, but the law does not restrict the crime to public actions.