kitaa said:
Not the laws but the law makers are insane...
And just how do insane lawmakers make sane laws?
Kiddy porn is maybe the perfect example of "I know it when I see it"—like the customs officer 'knew' the man in question had a pornographic pic of a naked boy on his phone—but it's almost impossible to define in a statute. Just how do you write a law that lets Dad have this sort of pic? Wouldn't exactly the same pic in the collection of a stranger be the sort of thing you'd want the law to penalize? You have a try at defining the difference.
Meantime, Canada Customs (as they used to be called) still says they were right and the picture was/is a prohibited image, but that he's excused (The law would similarly excuse
Romeo and Juliet, and a good thing too). For all that I despise censorship, if we must have it, this sort of escape clause is a pretty good concept
Frankly, it's not the lawmakers who are insane, but their idiot constituents: like the folks who openly and repeatedly post about their own illegal, or at best questionably illegal activities with escorts or in MPs and VIPs (or enjoyment of the 'right' sort of porn) but then rush to be the first to post howling for the blood of whoever the authorities have picked up as today's 'scumbag-of-the-week'. There's another thread on TERB about this same case, f'rinstance; by that one the law was good and the guy… Well, the jury's out. Usually they're not so mild.
And if you're right about the lawmakers, it sure says nothing very complimentary about us for electing them. Maybe a few less posts on TERB whining about, "persecuting happy, consenting adults while child-molesters and gang-banger run rampant" and a few more in the same vein to the pols might help them get a better grip on reality.
