Share This Article
“A federal appeals court ruled that state law, not federal law, is the source of the criminal justice system and that the federal government may not prosecute anyone for violations of federal or state law that were committed before the enactment of the Communications Decency Act of 1996.
The CDA is a bill that was signed into law in 1996 that put an end to the war on drugs. The CDA was supposed to address whether the federal government should be able to prosecute people for illegal actions that were occurring before its inception. However, the CDA also went a step further and created a legal loophole for state and local governments to prosecute people for offenses committed before the CDA’s passage.
The case of Brian R. Davis is one of the more bizarre decisions that have been handed down by our Supreme Court Justice. The question is whether Davis is guilty of violating the Communications Decency Act (CDA) for posting a video on his Facebook page that was a “private, noncommercial, personal use.” The CDA says that the government does not have to prove it’s a criminal offense, but it doesn’t matter. The fact that the video was “private” was enough.
One of the more bizarre rulings has been the one from the Supreme Court on the issue of whether Davis violated the CDA after he posted a video of a nude woman on his Facebook page. The decision was that it was a misdemeanor, even though the video was posted private, and that even though the video was being used for commercial purposes, a violation.
The decision basically said that the government has to prove that the video was for commercial purposes, even though the video was private, and that even though the video was being used for commercial purposes, a violation.
The court basically decided that the government can’t punish a person for simply using a private video, even if that person was posting it in a public place. As we can see here, a person can be punished for using a private photo, but not for posting a public photo of the same person.
This ruling is so important because it’s the first of its kind. Previous rulings have established that private photos can be used for commercial purposes, but the courts have not yet decided whether it’s acceptable to use public photos for private commercial purposes. And, if they do say that public photos can be used for commercial purposes, it will be a huge precedent for how people will have to behave when private photos are used.
I think this ruling has far reaching implications. I’m sure that once the internet really becomes a global public institution, the ruling could be used to prevent things like this happening in your local town. Imagine a time when everything was private. Suddenly all the public photos you took, every picture you posted in a public forum, could be used by a corporate social network to show off your new “new cool business idea.
It is a sad fact that the internet is far more public than it was a few years ago. We all know it, but that doesn’t mean it’s not still in a lot of people’s faces.
As an example, I was recently talking to a friend who was involved in the “dissident” movement. His friend had done a lot of protesting and was trying to get the police to act on it. After being told that protests were banned in his town, he became upset and went to the police to complain. He was told that the protest wasnt banned, but he couldnt be bothered to go to the police because he was already in a fight.