Asmongold on NSFW mods

[Goji1639]

United States v. Handley, 564 F. Supp. 2d 996 (2008), was a court case in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa involving obscenity charges stemming from the importation of manga featuring pornographic depictions of fictional minors.

In February 2010, under the terms of plea, Handley was sentenced to six months in jail. Without the plea, he would have faced a maximum of 15 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. Upon release he was required to undergo three years' supervised release and five years' probation.

A plea agreement isn't a conviction; it's someone agreeing to a reduced punishment to avoid the trial entirely. By letter of the law he likely would've been found innocent had the trial commenced.

[Jadedsins]

United States v. Handley, 564 F. Supp. 2d 996 (2008), was a court case in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa involving obscenity charges stemming from the importation of manga featuring pornographic depictions of fictional minors.

In February 2010, under the terms of plea, Handley was sentenced to six months in jail. Without the plea, he would have faced a maximum of 15 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. Upon release he was required to undergo three years' supervised release and five years' probation.

Um did your read that case? Just making sure you want to go over the history of what happen with that and what charges he face?

[Raasu]

A plea agreement isn't a conviction; it's someone agreeing to a reduced punishment to avoid the trial entirely. By letter of the law he likely would've been found innocent had the trial commenced.

"Handley entered a guilty plea in May 2009; at Chase's recommendation he accepted a plea bargain believing it highly unlikely a jury would acquit him if shown the images in question."

His legal team doesn't agree with you...

[Jadedsins]

"Handley entered a guilty plea in May 2009; at Chase's recommendation he accepted a plea bargain believing it highly unlikely a jury would acquit him if shown the images in question."

His legal team doesn't agree with you...

though Handley ultimately pled guilty, District Judge James E. Gritzner ruled that 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(a)(2) and 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(b)(2) were constitutionally infirm because those subsections restrict protected speech and do not require the visual depictions be obscene. He also held that the determination of what constituted obscenity under 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(b)(1) was to be made by the trier of fact. Referring to previous U.S. Supreme Court cases on obscenity and child pornography, he held, "Free Speech Coalition made clear that banned material must meet either the Ferber or Miller standards. There is no dispute the images in this case do not involve real children, thus Ferber is inapplicable.


Sounds like he had bad legal team. That or they thought the way people act around this stuff. Americans would find him guilty no matter what. So ya



My point is this, If it was against the law. Hentai would be outright banned in the states.

[Goji1639]

"Handley entered a guilty plea in May 2009; at Chase's recommendation he accepted a plea bargain believing it highly unlikely a jury would acquit him if shown the images in question."

His legal team doesn't agree with you...

His legal team thought the jury would be freaked out by the images, not that he had done anything illegal. Innocent men are advised to take plea agreements all the time by their legal teams; and it often has nothing to do with actual guilt.

[Awha]

Defendant is charged in count one with receipt of obscene materials that were transported in interstate commerce and in counts two through four with possession of obscene materials that had been transported in interstate commerce.[2] While mere possession of obscene materials within the privacy of an individual's own home is a right protected by the Fourth Amendment, the zone of privacy recognized in Stanley is not unlimited.


We are not disposed to extend the precise, carefully limited holding of Stanley to permit importation of admittedly obscene materials simply because it is imported for private use only. To allow such a claim would be not unlike compelling the Government to permit importation of prohibited or controlled drugs for private consumption as long as such drugs are not for public distribution or sale. We have already indicated that the protected right to possess obscene material in the privacy of one's home does not give rise to a correlative right to have someone sell or give it to others. Nor is there any correlative right to transport obscene material in interstate commerce.

Seems like he got more shit for the fact he imported.

[Raasu]

though Handley ultimately pled guilty, District Judge James E. Gritzner ruled that 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(a)(2) and 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(b)(2) were constitutionally infirm because those subsections restrict protected speech and do not require the visual depictions be obscene. He also held that the determination of what constituted obscenity under 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(b)(1) was to be made by the trier of fact. Referring to previous U.S. Supreme Court cases on obscenity and child pornography, he held, "Free Speech Coalition made clear that banned material must meet either the Ferber or Miller standards. There is no dispute the images in this case do not involve real children, thus Ferber is inapplicable.


Sounds like he had bad legal team. That or they thought the way people act around this stuff. Americans would find him guilty no matter what. So ya



My point is this, If it was against the law. Hentai would be outright banned in the states.

You forgot to quote the part right after: "However, Gritzner's ruling was challenged by later case law in United States v. Dean."

You stated you didn't call pedophilia a fetish, but you did.
You said you only stated it in the context of general hentai, but that wasn't true.
You said there isn't a law against it. There is.
You said no one got convicted. Someone did.


What are we doing here?

[Wavaryen]

You forgot to quote the part right after: "However, Gritzner's ruling was challenged by later case law in United States v. Dean."

You stated you didn't call pedophilia a fetish, but you did.
You said you only stated it in the context of general hentai, but that wasn't true.
You said there isn't a law against it. There is.
You said no one got convicted. Someone did.


What are we doing here?

Hm, I was going to stay out of this because my fetishes are crazy. However, this comment right here made me laugh...So going to add my two cents in.


I'm not sure if you are a guy or not, but you do understand that we can get turned on by the strangest of things? I mean i got turned on as a kid when my aunt bent over, does that mean i'm into her? Heck no.


If someone sees a naked picture of Ryne, and like man that is messed up. Why did I get turned on. Does that mean they are a pedo? A fetish can mean something that can turn you on, but what is the line drawn from a pedo to a fetish? A pedo is someone who makes victims. A fetish is something that turns you on. So in that context it is fine.

The law is clear on this matter. You showed one case where they guy took a plea deal. That is not the same as losing the case, and we saw a case where it was thrown out because it did not meet the standards as well. So even if you want to use this case as an example. It is now net zero because it can go either way depending on the state you are in.



No offense to you, but every point that you made not only has been counter, but you keep deflecting, taking things out of context, and trying to take a moral high ground on a issue you clearly don't understand. For your own sake, I would just stop, it is silly at this point for you.


Or you can keep going. As my wife clearly pointed out. I am a sadist. So have at it.

[Goji1639]

Kind of an irrelevant aside, but I've always disliked the jury system.

Instead of having legal experts interpret and rule on the laws we grab 12 random, easily manipulated morons and see which legal expert is better at emotionally coercing and confusing them.

[Wavaryen]

Kind of an irrelevant aside, but I've always disliked the jury system.

Instead of having legal experts interpret and rule on the laws we grab 12 random, easily manipulated morons and see which side is better at emotionally coercing and confusing them.

Agree, also you only have as many rights as money can afford you. Good ol usa.