Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
User Settings
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Morning Legal Briefs

Post Comment
Enter the details of the comment you'd like to post in the boxes below and click the button at the bottom of the form.

39. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 27, 2013, 17:18 Beamer
PHJF wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 17:08:
Possession of child porn, for one. Have sex with a 14 year old?

You have to knowingly possess child porn. I can't go hide a picture of a naked kid in your wallet and have you arrested. And having sex with an underage is negligence. If under the (ludicrous) circumstances provided you were being charged, in all likelihood the grand jury would toss it.

Untrue. The ludicrous circumstances I provided have come close to happening. There have been cases where someone had sex with an underage girl found in a 21+ bar where the guy who had sex with her saw her ID.
He went to jail. Alaska, I believe, is the only place where negligence matters. Under strict liability there is no mens rea standard. Again, no mens rea standard means it does not matter if you are negligent or not, it matters if you did it or not.

As for child porn, it hinges on "knowingly," you are correct. But your hypothetical is accurate to a point. Yes, you cannot put the picture in a guy's wallet then have him arrested. However, the second he opens up his wallet and sees it there you can. A famous case involved a guy who had received some photos via email. He did not ask for this email. He did not seek it out. But he knew he had it. In fact, he went into his temporary cache to delete the pictures from his HDD. That act was the proof he knew he had it. BAM! Jail. Of course, they wanted to send him to jail so they went for it, but that's how thin the proof needs to be (in another famous case a farmer was sent repeated catalogs for videos, some of which had children. He never asked for the catalogs and repeatedly asked to be taken off the distribution list. As he had never done anything wrong, he was acquitted. After first being found guilty and having to appeal.)
Music for the discerning:
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
      ;)   ;)   :(   :(   :o   :o   %)   %)   :)   :)   :|   :|   ;P   ;P   X|   X|   :D   :D   More
Login Email   Password Remember Me
If you have a signature set up, it will be automatically appended to your comment.
If you don't already have a Blue's News user account, you can sign up here.
Forgotten your password? Click here.
          Email me when this topic is updated.

Special Codes

  • b[bold text]b
  • i[italic text]i
  • u[underline text]u
  • -[strikethrough text]-
  • c[code text]c
  • +[bullet point]+
  • q[quote text (indented)]q
  • [quote="Author"]quote text (indented)[/quote]
  • [url=Link]text[/url]
  • r{red text}r
  • g{green text}g
  • b{blue text}b
  • m{maroon text}m
  • s{secret text (shows in the background colour)}s

Forum Rules

  1. Disagree all you want but attacks of a personal nature will not be tolerated.
  2. Ethnic slurs and homophobic language will not be tolerated.
  3. Do not post spam, links to warez sites, or instructions on how to obtain pirated software.
  4. Abusing the forums in any manner that could be construed as 'griefing' will not be tolerated.


Blue's News logo