Quote:
|
The argument that something could corrupt children is an interesting one
|
wow, that IS an interesting concept - just imagine: laws to protect children from being corrupted. Oh, wait! There already ARE laws like that aren't there, even laws such as contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Guess that idea is not so new after all.
And Hanna, I'd argue that for Craig to rely on the ACLU arguments on privacy as a defense for his case does in effect mean that he is admitting to guilt (again). Yet he is trying to withdraw his admission of guilt to a specific crime, not defend his reasons for acting the way he did; he is arguing that he did not do the act he was accused of, that his intent and actions were interpreted incorrectly. So the privacy argument will not help him with that argument; it is designed more to help the individual who admits he did the act/crime but is arguing that he should not be convicted for those actions based on a violation of a constitutional right to privacy (such as gay individuals in similar circumstances). The privacy argument is just a technicality for a guilty person to avoid conviction but will not help Craig's reputation at all (not that anything will at this point).