🚀 go-pugleaf

   I am pleased to hear that your Regulation Nightmare From Hell includes
the criminalization of receipt, because it makes it much easier to engage
in acts of Legal Terrorism on behalf of free speech.
   The enforcement power of the state will be limited to a certain number
of prosecutions, and obviously their intent is to cause people to change
their reading or posting habits on the basis of risk.  If the
prosecutions can be redirected primarily at innocent persons, this
perceived risk is decreased, while anti-government sentiment can be
strengthened.  There is nothing unethical in such redirection, because
the same total number of persons will be harmed, and none of them deserve
it.
   It is entirely legal in the United States (EVEN under the CDA), and
more importantly, protected by the constitution, to possess and transmit
several classes of the material which in Australia is classed "RC".  It
is merely necessary to transmit this material to semi-random recipients
(strong free speech proponents and persons engaging in civil disobedience
should be screened out with Dejanews).
   The question is simply this:  in what context should a person transmit
this information, and how should he arrange for that transmission to be
reported to the authorities, so as to maximize the number of persons
charged?
   I appreciate any advice.


[special disclaimer:  No such acts of Legal Terrorism, however legitimate
under U.S. law, will originate from this address.]