RM58: Seventh Circuit Strikes Total Ban On Porn

Episode 58 brings in the first Registry Matters episode of the new year! Ask your prosecutor how they can prosecute someone knowing that they might be innocent; Lubbock, Texas has a novel method of indigent defense; News Flash: Not all offenders are the same – I know, shocker right?; A seven-fold increase in men in prison for CP; YAV (Yet Another Vigilante) with blood on his hands; Sovereign nations controlling their borders; Suing the state for damages from the Scarlet Letter; Seventh Circuit vacates conditions of supervision (US vs. Canfield)

[14:00] https://dailyjournalonline.com/opinion/letters/fooling-the-taxpayer/article_4fe3036d-1bd7-5dd4-a3ac-782dacd85d9b.html

[18:50] https://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/editorials/article/How-Lubbock-became-the-model-for-indigent-defense-13467686.php

[22:15] https://amp.floridatoday.com/amp/2449606002

[26:50] https://reason.com/blog/2019/01/02/the-number-of-men-in-federal-prison-for

[34:00] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/he-lures-alleged-child-predators-shames-them-facebook-now-one-n953856

[41:00] http://philippines-magazine.com/2018/01/10/187-foreign-sex-offenders-mostly-americans-barred-entering-phl-2017/

[46:50] https://madisonrecord.com/stories/511691204-belleville-man-sues-state-s-attorney-officials-for-10m-over-sex-offender-registration

[52:50] https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/2476839002

[59:15] https://www.criminallegalnews.org/news/2018/dec/28/seventh-circuit-vacates-conditions-supervised-release-following-child-pornography-conviction/
United States v Canfield

Share the podcast with those you know so that we can continue to grow our audience! We continue to receive a lot of positive feedback. Help us grow!

https://www.Registrymatters.co/podcast/rm58-seventh-circuit-strikes-total-ban-on-porn
747-227-4477
registrymatterscast@gmail.com
https://www.patreon.com/registrymatters
Discord server? https://discord.gg/DAmupkf
https://shop.spreadshirt.com/registry-matters
iTunes, Google Play Music, RSS, Spotify

7 thoughts to “RM58: Seventh Circuit Strikes Total Ban On Porn”

  1. The disproportionate sentences being handed down for possession of child pornography can be traced back to nothing more than moral outrage: the idea that someone is sexually aroused to young children or under-age teens (with the most intense animosity toward the former). The assumption is made that if an individual is a consumer of child pornography they must be either planning a hands-on offense with a child in the immediate future or that they are currently committing hands-on offenses with a child. The judgment is made that this is a dangerous individual: a ticking time bomb just waiting to detonate and mar someone’s innocent child. This person MUST be dangerous, so we’re going to get him (or her) off the street for as long as possible.

    What makes even less sense is that the penalties are as severe or even more so than if a hands-on offense had been committed. Each individual image can and sometimes is charged as a separate count. I have actually read of that being done and the prosecution actually got the judge to run the sentences consecutively. How over-the-top is that???

    1. Additionally, there is often no way to determine whether “young looking” females are underage or not and you are right, the penalties are extremely severe just for looking on the all too available porn sites that happen to have “young females.” And the registry is a constitutional rights outrage. If a murderer or batterer gets released and completes their sentence, there is no registry for life. Why isn’t there outrage about this type of person having a registry. Discrimination! And I suggest that the recidivism rate for most sex offenders is lower and most of these offenders will never re-offend. First offenders are often stupid young men who made a bad mistake.

  2. Just think about how many .jpg, .bmp, .mp4, .wmv, .avi or .flv files can be stored on say a 3 TB external hard drive. Imagine being charged with a count for each and every single image and video and having each count ran consecutively. You can have people going to prison for the rest of their natural lives.

  3. I tend to read reason.com and I agree they are mostly pragmatic in their analysis of issues. THAT
    As far as the huge increase in CP fed cases THAT is directly related to the agenda supported by the far right (sex is only moral for the married\ in union with God) and electronic surveillance saints. Like I’ve stated many times, the whole boondoggle has been far more about ‘government database use by agents’, than the Sex offender.
    The sex offender was merely the sales pitch & scapegoat to justify domestic electronic surveillance (agent behavior rules inside U.S. Sovereign territories) desired by LEO in general. NSA, FBI, CIA, FCC, yada yada yada. Could any modern government survive without it? He’ll No! So they built the infrastructure in Saratoga Springs Utah. They use it to full logical if not political effect. Remember, electronic surveillance usually occurs in the background without the knowledge of the observed. LEO also desires to bypass locked cell phones to access user behavior. Our constitution calls it unreasonable search, and every KING demanded the right.

    While a citizen may not dispute the people’s the right to own and\or operate a database, a citizen may dispute his own duty to maintain it. An important distinction. That question has not been asked.

  4. Andys,
    The people can look to Chief Justice John G. Roberts for his leadership supporting the public display that SOR brings. He convinced the court to overlook the clearly unconstitutional use of the devices so that vigilantism proceeds. He conserves something but it is not liberty. He convinced them to ignore the obvious ex post language, “Was in prison for” for the greater good of public safety potential the electronic databases would surely provide through informing.
    IMHO, Mr. Roberts has blood on his hands. American leadership by the unelected. I guess you do not need a constitution so long as you have a database.

  5. Believe me its about time they strick a total ban on something instead of putting a ban ade on it. I wasn’t much even interested in Playboy back in my college days. Does government really know the direction they are going when one checks someone’s computer and if they see no porn on it, with all this other stuff the sex offender faces, I would wonder who’s is invading confusion by this plundering probe of mind justice.

    I was always taught that the crime doesn’t always justify the means, or should the crime justify the means. Maybe government should take womens’ or girls’ gymnistastic’s off TV today. Andy and larry I feel for you guys in these comments.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *