In reference to Coppa Law - and don't be anal and try to twist the arm of the law - you may be an armchair lawyer, but you AIN'T a REAL lawyer!
http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/usc...6----000-.html
“minor” means any person under the age of eighteen years
“sexually explicit conduct” means actual or simulated—
(A) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;
(
bestiality;
(C) masturbation;
(D) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(E) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person
“child pornography” means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where—
(A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
(
such visual depiction is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
(C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
(D) such visual depiction is advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression that the material is or contains a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct
So, in my mind - what little there is of it, your pedophilia claims ar bullshit - because I haven't seen this happen AND to add to this:
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-5559474.html
In a ruling that strengthens Internet free-speech protections, a New Jersey court has said that an owner of an online discussion board is not responsible for derogatory, malicious and even potentially defamatory comments posted to it.
"In the context of traditional media, such as newspapers and magazines, the publisher of defamatory statements might well be exposed to liability for conduct such as that alleged," the judges said. But because Congress broadly immunized Internet service providers as part of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, the judges concluded, owners of discussion boards also can benefit from the law's protections.
"The technology is available to require users to register with the Webmaster prior to using the discussion forum message board and to identify themselves by name, address and e-mail address; however, Moldow designed the Eye on Emerson Web site and its discussion forum to allow all users to post messages anonymously," the town council members argued in court documents.
The judges disagreed and upheld a lower court's ruling. "That he allows users to post messages anonymously or that he knows the identity of users of the Web site are simply not relevant to the terms of Congress' grant of immunity," they concluded.
A part of the Communications Decency Act that remains intact today--its "indecency" and "patently offensive" restrictions were struck down by the Supreme Court--says that "no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." A number of other courts have reached similar conclusions about the law's breadth.
let me repeat that last part:
A part of the Communications Decency Act that remains intact today--its "indecency" and "patently offensive" restrictions were struck down by the Supreme Court--says that "no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." A number of other courts have reached similar conclusions about the law's breadth.
So your complaint about pedophilia and the threats to take action on it hold no "water". :p
