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.

95. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 28, 2013, 16:02 Beamer
jdreyer wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 14:56:
Beamer wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 07:51:
[url=]Here's a good case about strict liability.

A guy downloads a ton of porn off of Limewire. Some of it is underage, but not marked so. He deletes the underage porn. He has no interest in underage porn. But, once he opens it, he knows he has it. He did not know he was going to download it until after the fact.

He is found guilty.

Well, except that he hadn't deleted ALL of them:

The officers seized the computer and delivered it to the crime lab of the Hennepin County Sheriff's Office. Once there, crime lab employee Anthony Pollock searched the computer's hard drive and noted that LimeWire was installed on the computer. He found “hundreds” of adult pornography files, and also discovered 63 files that he believed could be child pornography, based on their file names. Most of these files were located in a LimeWire “Shared” folder. Pollock was not able to locate the videos downloaded by Officer Hanson on June 17 and July 23 by name; he found evidence, however, that two of those videos were previously on the computer, but had since been removed or deleted.

If you've got 63 undeleted illegal files on your had drive, that indicates you're not very interested in deleting them.

Yup, still, the fact remains that the law only cares that you know you have it (and, well, that it's above 3 images. If it's 3 or less they don't care, so long as you either delete it immediately or notify law enforcement.)

Strict liability means you don't have to know you're committing a crime. That was the initial argument here, whether such a thing exists.
It's a weird semantics argument he picked with me, but it's true that criminal laws do not necessarily care if you intended to do something illegal. The vast majority do, but not all, therefore the fact that something is a criminal law does not mean intent is necessary.
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