Turns out that no matter how much Frank Gagliardi and his lawyers complain that a law which allows police to act as children online in order to conduct "internet predator stings" is "just mean and like so unfair"... a federal appeals court said that "First Amendment provides no refuge for such criminals."
Ha. Take that you sick little monkeys.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan noted that its findings were in line with similar decisions by six other appeals panels across the country that it said had "squarely rejected" the same arguments for "sound reasons."
The unanimous three-judge panel's decision came in the case of a man who appealed his conviction on one count of attempting to entice a child to engage in prohibited sexual activity.
Lawyers for Frank Gagliardi had argued that the law used to convict him required an actual child victim and that it was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad.
The 2nd Circuit panel said in U.S. v. Gagliardi that requiring law enforcement officers to use an actual child as a decoy would significantly impede legitimate enforcement of the law and it was not necessary because the language of the law is clear that it is not required.
The appeals court also rejected his argument that the law "impermissibly suppresses fantasy speech with adults who happen to be posing as minors."
The court said it had already concluded in previous cases that speech is not protected by the First Amendment when it is the "very vehicle of the crime itself."
Bad primate... bad primate. How's this for a "right", you have the "right" to be a pervert... and we have the right to jail you for acting like one.
Human Reactions: