(11-06-2014, 10:49 PM)allgivenover Wrote: It's my understanding that the California law has only been used to pile on a case against someone who was already under investigation for child pornography, it has never been used against anyone who only wrote something, and if it was it would be challenged and dismissed in an appeal court.
The fears about this are completely unfounded.
Well then I'm afraid I must respectfully disagree.
The lacking precedent on these issues, and the contradictions within the codes themselves as well as the wanton application of such (As in the case you mentioned which was cited in my above post) makes this a 'wild west' frontier of law. That case itself is a clear example of such. The codes that were drawn upon to decide the man's verdict were nebulous at best, leaving the decision to the discretion of the court. That case will now hold precedence over all cases that follow. These issues that will define case law have yet to arise, and no real predictions can be made to the effects those cases will have.Â
Combine that with the inherent risk of unknowingly rping with a minor, and the devastating effects written erotica involving minors IC would have on such a case, I do not feel it is 'unfounded' in the slightest. Yes, the risk is minute, for most of us, I am not arguing that. but it is there. Not to even mention the possible non-legal repercussions of being socially branded as someone participating in erotica involving minors.Â
EDIT: Which you yourself have acknowledged- In just playing devil's advocate you are being judged. However to call this an 'kneejerk' issue is hardly fair. Disagreeing with portrayal of minors in sexual situations in any context is a valid opinion. One I do not agree with on every level (As I can understand realistic portrayals of such with genuine literary value) but I can certainly understand when considering the broader consequences of such material.
But I will repeat that that was not the point of this thread in the slightest.
