[Pigdog] Child Porn - The Lies of Ashcroft (fwd)

[Eric Cordian]

Eugene Leitl <Eugene.Leitl at 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 at 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"