Eugene Leitl <Eugene.Leitl@lrz.uni-muenchen.de> writes:

A somewhat dissenting opinion, and from a lawyer, no less.

The we won't tell the joke about the bus going over the cliff with one empty seat. :)

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Philip Kingston <pkingston@beenelawrence.com>

Uhh...Mr. Reedy admitted in interrogation that he knew that 40% of his business was child porn,

I've always regarded liability for content as a binary situation. Either one is or one isn't. The reading and viewing preferences of ones customers are hardly something under ones control. Does a library acquire liability when 40% of its customers look at the most controversial books? Does an ISP suddenly become liable for the contents of its news spool, if 40% of its customers should decide to investigate the naked children newsgroups? I think putting people in jail for knowing about content they have no control over is a very bad idea. Most adult sites located in more lax jurisdictions carry a variety of material, only some of which is in violation of US laws. Since not one of the Reedys' customers was charged with downloading any specific illegal image at the two foreign sites, and the 100 arrests were produced by an entirely separate entrapment scheme targeting the Reedys' customer base, it seems unlikely that evidence linking specific customers to specific images exists. At most we can say that the two sites containing some illegal (in the US) material reached an embarrassingly high level of popularity, and were visited by numerous people, some of whom may have looked at stuff the US Government forbids. Or may not have, for that matter.

he had a link on HIS site that said "Click here for child porn,"

Of course, this is one BIG problem with child porn laws. No one can look at the site to see if what is being said about it is the truth. The claim that the Landslide Web site had a clickable link with the actual text "Click here for child porn" was made by an investigator who looked at the site, and was widely repeated in the press. I have been unable to independently coroborate this, and quite frankly, it's real hard to believe, especially since the site was supposedly operating according to well-clued legal advice. Anyone who could put up a mirror of the site stripped of potentially illegal images and artwork would be doing everyone who wants to verify amazing allegations like this a big favor. I'll go on record as being skeptical "Click here for child porn" was prominently displayed.

and two counts he was convicted on were for his personal library of child porn.

Again, that Mr. Ready may have downloaded images that were illegal in the US is not a crime meriting life in prison, and orthogonal to the entire age verification/liability for content question.

I can see a continuum of behavior that runs between innocently providing access to illegal material and active child exploitation, and I'll be the first to admit that I don't really know where to draw the line.

I would argue that if one does not have liability for content, whether one is aware the content is illegal is immaterial.

However, this case doesn't get near that line; it's just about child porn.

It's about whether the government should be able to jail people child pornographers purchase goods and services from, when they are unable to get their hands on the child pornographers, who aren't breaking any major laws in their own jurisdiction. It's also about the Feebs getting their hands on the Reedys' not insignificant assets. Could Kodak executives be "child pornographers" if 40% of the images taken with some inexpensive digital camera they manufacture were demonstrated to be of tumescent child genitalia? Would this change if they were aware of this use? -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"