🚀 go-pugleaf

it as far as they can."

They have absolutely no scruples, often.

In the AA BBS case, the Feds PURPOSELY PULLED graphics legal in California
into hick Tennessee, and succeeded in jailing the CA owner.

Wow. The Feds must have been drooling when Congress passed the CDA.

In addition, they sent UNSOLICITED real child porno to the owner, and charged
him with possession of child porno.

No code of ethics or conduct.

No scruples.

Predatory pinheads.

----

*   "WHITE HOUSE IS SET TO EASE ITS STANCE ON INTERNET SMUT"
*   The New York Times, By John M. Broder, June 16 1997
*   
*   Administration officials, in a draft report dated June 4 1997, have been
*   quietly fashioning a new communications policy that leaves most regulation
*   of the Internet to industry and people themselves, due to an expected
*   repudiation of the Communications Decency Act by the Supreme Court.
*   
*   Reno's people, [beating the Drum of War] told the Supreme Court "the
*   Internet was a revolutionary threat to children rendering irrelevant all
*   prior efforts" to protect them from pornography.
*   
*   "We all knew at the time it was passed that the Communications Decency Act
*   WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL," said an anonymous senior government official [yea
*   anonymity!].
*   
*   "This was purely politics."
*   
*   "How could you be against a bill limiting
*   the display of pornography to children?"

Thank you once again, Free World Leaders,
for that intelligent political discourse.

On 6/26/97, CDA was ruled unconstitutional 7-2 by the Supreme Court.

----

Predatory behavior.

*   The New York Times, April 19, 1992
*    
*    The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling, overturned the conviction of a
*    Nebraska farmer on charges of receiving child pornography. The only
*    pornography the government found was the one item it sent him, "Boys
*    Who Love Boys".
*    
*    It took the government over