[conservative in nyc]

I really would like a link to this supposed federal law. The post in 678 only refers to definitions. Definitions define things in other law.

[tobyhill]

I was referencing 678 as a response to another post that used that as a law in which Foley could be prosecuted but the only law that deals with child exploitation from that specific US code is with visual depictions. My point was Foley could not be prosecuted even if there was something within this law if his conduct was prior to this law being revised which was 7/7/2006 by the House if that revision dealt with what they want to charge him with. I'm not sure of the exact laws that have been struck down but yesterday I saw a website bragging that at least a dozen laws since 1998 of prohibiting child exploitation had been struck down by the courts. The US Supreme Court actually ruled that prohibiting explicit language on the web is in violation of free speech even if it reaches a child.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002252----000-.html