Morning Docket: 05.21.08
* Justice Department report details FBI objections to interrogation techniques used on terror suspects. [Legalities / ABC News; McClatchy]
* Jurors get a bit too much evidence in R. Kelly trial. [CNN]
* Officers in Sean Bell case face NYPD charges of misusing firearms. [New York Times]
* Florida woman gets seven years for enslavement. [CNN]
* Clinton takes Kentucky, but Obama grabs Oregon and the majority of pledged delegates. [MSNBC; New York Times]
* Should Obama promise Hillary a SCOTUS nomination? [Washington Post]
(7) 
Comments
Comments hidden for your protection. Show them anyway!
R Kelly article - "Sketch artists were warned that if they drew any depiction of the acts on the tape, they, too, could be charged with child pornography. "
WTF?? It's first amendment protected speech to create virtual realistic images of children having sex - drawing is certainly so, especially when it's newsworthy.
That wouldn't be a virtual image. It would be a representation of an actual illegal sex act, akin to a photo of the video. Not the same thing. Virtual is meant to cover actors portraying a child or computer generated images.
10:09, you're an idiot. Paintings, drawings, and other artistic renderings are not within the scope of kiddie porn laws. In no way is human re-conception, rather than mechanical copying, "akin to a photo of the video" in so far as the First Amendment is concerned,
Hillary on the Supreme Court? Heaven help us.
10:19: the "you're an idiot" argument is always good. Here's the thing, I guess a lot has changed since you prosecuted child pornographers. Oh, that's right.
I have, many times. I am very familiar with the statutes and court opinions. This would fit within the law. What you're arguing is that you don't like what the law is. Too bad. The intent was to punish those that enage in activities that harm children, or promote the harm of actual children. Those that just want to make fictional depictions get a pass.
An artists making something up out of thin air is arguably not harmful. A sketch artist copying a videotape of an actual child rape is probably a criminal offense, especially after transmitted over the internet.
But, I guess I'm too stupid to understand these things. I'll tell you what, go out and sketch an actual child being rape and put it on the internet. See what happens. Good luck with your brilliant argument. Make sure you tell the AUSA and judges that they're idiots too. Feel good in the fact that you'll be the smartest guy in the prison.
Hillary on the SC? While we’re in ridiculous land, let’s put Tony Rezko in charge of the Senate Appropriations Committee.
11:03, you're still an idiot. The reason virtual kiddie porn is not illegal and is protected is because there is no "harm to children" in the production of it; potential for promoting harm to children was found to be too weak a concern to prohibit speech.
If videos of virtual kiddie porn are protected, no court is going to find someone's sketching which is a product of his own mental process is kiddie porn.