US versus Comstock (i.e. the "look at loli go to jail forever" ruling)

[elftaint]

look just... just so people know, this ruling is a Constitutional travesty and one of the few times I've ever agreed with Alito, but let's uh. Let's take a look at what was actually ruled.

The federal statute before us allows a district court toorder the civil commitment of an individual who is currently “in the custody of the [Federal] Bureau of Prisons,” §4248, if that individual

(1) has previously “engaged or attempted to engage in sexually violent conduct or child molestation,”
(2) currently “suffers from a serious mental illness, abnormality, or disorder,” and
(3) “as a result of” that mental illness, abnormality, or disorder is “sexually dangerous to others,” in that “he would have serious diffi-culty in refraining from sexually violent conduct or childmolestation if released.” §§4247(a)(5)–(6).

In order to detain such a person, the Government (acting through the Department of Justice) must certify to a federal district judge that the prisoner meets the conditions just described, i.e., that he has engaged in sexually violent activity or child molestation in the past and thathe suffers from a mental illness that makes him correspondingly dangerous to others. §4248(a). When such a certification is filed, the statute automatically stays theindividual’s release from prison, ibid., thereby giving the Government an opportunity to prove its claims at a hear-ing through psychiatric (or other) evidence, §§4247(b)–(c), 4248(b). The statute provides that the prisoner “shall berepresented by counsel” and shall have “an opportunity” atthe hearing “to testify, to present evidence, to subpoena witnesses on his behalf, and to confront and cross-examine” the Government’s witnesses. §§4247(d), 4248(c).

So yes, it is an aggressive breach of habeus corpus and lots of other things, but it is not a ruling that confirms some governmental power to detain your ass forever just for looking at loli. A necessary provision of the law is that anyone held under it must have actually, personally, physically molested a child or been caught in an attempt to do so. Possession of lolicon/shotacon can be used in a trial as evidence to prove (2) or (3) above, but without (1), the whole thing is moot.

Please, continue to freak out about this suck-ass ruling, everyone. But at least do it for the right reasons.

Read the ruling in full here.

Comments

[withscissors]

THANK YOU.

I swear if I have to explain what this law actually says to some well-meaning internets lawyer one more time...