Cindy: I truly assume that we will need to broaden our standpoint about the issue, not just to the element where we locate it, but to the component wherever we basically prosecute the people who are sharing it.
Tyronegipson
No. 108-2, at 10 n.6 (2003) (stating that the provision calls for the government to build that the defendant acted with the unique intent to website traffic in obscene content or actual child pornography). Feb.16, 2006) (No. 05-1073) (holding that textual e mail about boy or girl pornography exchanged by associates of the e-group was not shielded speech) United States v. Coreas, 426 F.3d 615 (2nd Cir.2005) (exact same) United States v.