🚀 go-pugleaf

dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:

[...]
>   Isn't it true that the seizure of property in these cases (video stores
>included) (and in the USA) are based on the RICO (organized crime) laws?
>Am I the only one that thinks that applying RICO laws to video stores is
>wrong? 
[...]

No, you are not alone. At least one court agrees with you
and at least once court disagrees with you.

- Carl

ANNOTATED REFERENCES

(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)

=================
law/rico-porn
=================
* Expression -- Obscenity -- Forfeiture

Short excerpt from a newspaper story about a court decision. Also a
full newspaper story on a related case. In the first case the judge
wrote that the payoff in discouraging pornography through sweeping
forfeitures "does not justify the additional curtailment of
constitutionally protected, sexually explicit speech." The second
judge ruled the opposite. The Supreme Court has agreed to decide one
way or the other.

=================
=================

If you have gopher, you can browse the CAF archive with the command
   gopher gopher.eff.org

These document(s) are also available by anonymous ftp (the preferred
method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp
to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):

  pub/academic/law/rico-porn

To get the file(s) by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):

send acad-freedom/law rico-porn

-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
 = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =