Hey! When did the question shift to the reasonability of this law, and away from the supposition that we ought to have known about it? I was really interested in reading your response on the former topic…
I disagree. It’s not a crime unless you do it “willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain.” See 17 USC § 1204.
No shift has happened.
It’s very reasonable to say that anyone with common sense would know that if a person has six or more identical items of this nature, that supports an inference that they intend to distribute or promote them. The bolded portion of the law in question only creates that presumption. Since we’re discussing a law that creates a presumption, and the issue is: “Should people know about this law?” then the issue of reasonableness is very much at hand. Of course people know, or should know, that if they have six or more identical items, then it’s a reasonable assumption that they are not merely for personal use.
I have never in my life had a CD break.
But if it did, I’d probably just throw it away.
So what? Do you imagine that throwing it away somehow creates a crime?
It lessens your ability to create a defense when accused of the crime of illegal copying. How would you prove that your copy on computer or CD was indeed legally backed-up from your purchased copy of Don Ho’s Greatest Hits?
“Of this nature”? I would have zero idea whatsoever that some crazed lawmaker cares what I do with my vagina on my own time. You may consider it normal for adults to worry that their sex toys might be illegal; I don’t.
I would think that it falls under the heading of
It’s none of their damn business
That is the thing about privacy, the idea that some things are nobody else’s damn business. If anyone is really so worried about it, they have some very serious issues of their own and are not fit to run anyone else’s life. Invasion of privacy is an attempt to run someone else’s life. If there is no need or right to privacy, then we don’t need no stinking warrants.
I would think that it falls under the heading of
It’s none of their damn business
That is the thing about privacy, the idea that some things are nobody else’s damn business. If anyone is really so worried about it, they have some very serious issues of their own and are not fit to run anyone else’s life. Invasion of privacy is an attempt to run someone else’s life. If there is no need or right to privacy, then we don’t need no stinking warrants.
Besides, back to the six similar or identical (whatever) items. I have six beers in the fridge right now. Is that illegal yet? After all, I have SIX of them.
gasp
I feel faint. There oughtta be a law… somewhere.
I’m going to assume intent to distribute, and I am emailing you my address posthaste. (Please FedEx; I’m down to one.)
What if I have 7 color coded butt plugs, one for every day that ends in y?
What if they’re all hot pink, because I really like hot pink, and I just keep track of which hot pink butt plug is for Tuesday?
Bricker, I was quite amazed when you said
Surely you don’t think that everyone, at age 18 (old enough to be tried as an adult) somehow knows every law, not just of the US, but of every state that they happen to be travelling through, or just moved to?
I’m pushing 60, and I just found out (via SDMB) that in some states, if you have sex with someone who’s really drunk, that’s rape … which means that the last time my wife and I got really toasted and hooked up, we both could have been charged with rape …
Who knew?
I can’t believe you really think that everyone knows all of the laws of every state by the time they turn 18, that’s nonsense.
w.
Read that section again.
(f) A person who possesses six or more obscene devices or identical or similar obscene articles is presumed to possess them with intent to promote the same.
Six or more devices. The devices do not have to be identical, not even similar. They can be as disparate as anal beads, strap on dildos, vibrators, butt plugs. It is a “gotcha” law. I could have more than six of the same vibrator, just because I really (and I mean really) like one particular model and bought as many as I could when it stopped being manufactured. They would be new, in their original packaging. No evidence but my say so that the devices were meant for my personal use. What would be my defense then?
There are many laws that we reasonable people don’t know about until they are profiled in the national press or we inadvertantly run afoul of them.
Interestingly, Bricker, college students have been threatened with lawsuits for revealing that holding down the shift key disables one form of very poor copy protection.
This was not done for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain. I do know that a person may be sued for anything, but there is a movement to criminalize these ‘violations of intellectual property’.
Furthermore, according to 17 USC § 1201(a) (1), you are incorrect, sir.
I do hope you havn’t been using a VCR or TiVo through a RF modulator to record shows. That does let you convert from coax to SVGA, but it also happens to break Macrovision’s copy protection some of the time.
Yes, it lessens my ability to create a defense.
But we’re discussing whether or not there’s a law I’ve broken. If you wish to expand the discussion to include the dangers of being innocent but accused of breaking the law, we can certainly have that discussion at some point after we’ve disposed of this one.
“Threatened with lawsuits” refers to a civil action. Someone threatened to sue them. That’s a civil issue. It has nothing to do with CRIME, which is the subject under discussion here.
Now, you say there’s a “movement” to criminalize these types of violations. Fine. The moment that movement actually becomes law, I will then concede that there’s a crime out there… unless, of course, in the process of becoming law the issue receives such publicity and discussion that no one could possibly claim ignorance of the issue any more.
Furthermore, my tired aunt.
17 USC § 1201(a) (1) does not describe a crime. It says “no person shall…” and goes on to describe a whole host of conduct. But what’s the penalty for violating any of that?
That’s found in the section I mentioned above: § 1204. It says:
So the elements of the CRIME described by § 1201 include the scienter element “wilfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain.”
I haven’t. But if I had, it certainly would not be wilfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, so it wouldn’t be a crime.
Well, we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
To me, it’s blindingly obvious that if you have sex with someone who is so drunk that they cannot give meaningful consent to the act, that’s rape.
Of course, the issue is not decided myopically by, say, blood alcohol content. The totality of circumstances is considered. Merely being “toasted” is not enough to support a charge of rape anywhere. Being so blotto that you cannot give meaningful consent, on the other hand, can support such a charge.
To my way of thinking, that’s a pretty obvious state of affairs: you can’t have sex with someone – even your wife – without her consent.
Really?
You may disagree - strongly, even - that the crazed lawmaker SHOULD be making such laws.
But are you really honestly saying that, until this discussion, you had no idea that such crazed lawmakers existed, and they did make such laws?
:rolleyes:
Not a valid analogy. Beer is consumable; having identical beers does not support the same inference that having identical butt plugs does.
Here, again, I think we will simply have to agree to disagree.
The state has long been able to ban obscene materials or devices. They are not protected by the First Amendment.
Let me ask you a question: if I told you that in, say, 1960, the state of Texas banned the possession of multiple vibrators, would you be surprised, or would you nod and think, “Yeah, I’m not at all shocked to hear that?”
Now: in what way has the Constitution been amended between now and then that would suggest to you Texas no longer has that power? More broadly, what has changed since then that would make you now approach the same question utterly amazed to hear that such a law exists?