5 ms·

I understand the ban on child porn is justified via the interstate commerce clause: Federal jurisdiction is implicated if the child pornography offense occurre

I understand the ban on child porn is justified via the interstate commerce clause: Federal jurisdiction is implicated if the child pornography offense occurred in interstate or foreign commerce. This includes, for example, using the U.S. Mails or common carriers to transport child pornography across state or international borders. Additionally, federal jurisdiction almost always applies when the Internet is used to commit a child pornography violation. Even if the child pornography image itself did not traveled across state or international borders, federal law may be implicated if the materials, such as the computer used to download the image or the CD Rom used to store the image, originated or previously traveled in interstate or foreign commerce. https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/citizens-guide-us-federal-law-child-pornography https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/citizens-guide-us-fede... Theoretically, would a general citizen be exempt from the ban if he manufactured his own CD-ROMs, and his own CPUs in-state? It might be illegal for them to operate the sites for extended periods of time. It doesn't seem illegal for them to deploy malware as part of an investigation. I'm looking at (f) here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030 So the worst that could happen is that the evidence gets thrown out. If they weren't going to otherwise be able to nab the person, the worst that could happen is they lose the case.

js_what_ 10y ago
I would say the worst that could happen is the FBI is knowingly distributing child pornography, providing access to illegal materials and re-victimizing minors.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
alexmingoia 10y ago
Good idea, but that defense has already been rejected by the Supreme Court twice. Their reason? I kid you not... "the butterfly effect". The Supreme Court considers any activity that doesn't leave the state to possibly affect interstate commerce so they can regulate everything with that clause. See Wickard v. Filburn and most recently Gonzales v. Raich. Prepare to be enraged.
- wool_gather 10y ago
  Enraging indeed. "Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce" [emphasis mine] -- Justice Antonin Scalia, in the majority opinion for Gonzales v. Raich, using his vaunted legal genius to find a reason, any reason at all, to stop people from doing things that he didn't like. One of the most influential hypocrites of the new millenium, if not the whole history of the republic.
LeifCarrotson 10y ago
> Theoretically, would a general citizen be exempt from the ban if he manufactured his own CD-ROMs, and his own CPUs in-state? I would be seriously impressed if you could manufacture your own computer capable of accessing the Internet and displaying an image from a single US state. Semiconductor manufacturing, networking software, electronics manufacturing, and so on are thoroughly global industries. But even if you could, in the end, they're using this clause from the constitution: > To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes. to give them jurisdiction in cases of Internet child pornography. The entity determining whether or not this jurisdiction is valid is not like a computer program that will look at a homebrew computer, check where all the parts came from, look at the text of the law, and say "Whoops, nothing in this case crossed state lines, we don't have jurisdiction, you're free to go." I see this attitude on HN way too often. Instead, remember that it's a bunch of humans who considered the problem of child pornography, chose to fight it, and only then looked for a source of jurisdiction. That source does not actually need to be valid (not that I actually dispute that the FBI should have jurisdiction when US citizens commit crimes using the Internet), but it's important to realize that it only needs to be strong enough to stand up to the political will to oppose it. And there are no prosecutors with a will or the political power to oppose the FBI for going after sexual predators. This state of affairs probably results in some overreach. But even considering the potential problems with this approach taken to the extreme, I find it extremely hard to align myself against the FBI. What if the FBI operated honeypot sites with zero-day exploits inserted for them by Microsoft, Apple, and Google, hacking modems and demanding ISPs snoop on their users, opposing HTTPS rollout, and generally causing great harm to law-abiding users of the internet? But these actions protected kids? How much harm would it take to shift my allegiance into opposing the FBI? Scary stuff.
- pbhjpbhj 10y ago
  >Instead, remember that it's a bunch of humans who considered the problem of child pornography, chose to fight it, and only then looked for a source of jurisdiction. // It's not my country but this is the thing that grates most with me, the "act first and try and find legal justification afterwards". Officers of the law should really be seeking to act legally in the first place. What you propose, companies creating a system of open reporting is fine by me, but doing it covertly is not. Enact laws allowing it and tell the public it's happening. That's the democratic way.
15155 10y ago
The wheat you grow for your family affects the market which is in another state - your family no longer buys wheat, reducing demand.

js_what_ 10y ago

I would say the worst that could happen is the FBI is knowingly distributing child pornography, providing access to illegal materials and re-victimizing minors.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

alexmingoia 10y ago

Good idea, but that defense has already been rejected by the Supreme Court twice. Their reason? I kid you not... "the butterfly effect". The Supreme Court considers any activity that doesn't leave the state to possibly affect interstate commerce so they can regulate everything with that clause. See Wickard v. Filburn and most recently Gonzales v. Raich. Prepare to be enraged.

wool_gather 10y ago
Enraging indeed. "Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce" [emphasis mine] -- Justice Antonin Scalia, in the majority opinion for Gonzales v. Raich, using his vaunted legal genius to find a reason, any reason at all, to stop people from doing things that he didn't like. One of the most influential hypocrites of the new millenium, if not the whole history of the republic.

LeifCarrotson 10y ago

> Theoretically, would a general citizen be exempt from the ban if he manufactured his own CD-ROMs, and his own CPUs in-state? I would be seriously impressed if you could manufacture your own computer capable of accessing the Internet and displaying an image from a single US state. Semiconductor manufacturing, networking software, electronics manufacturing, and so on are thoroughly global industries. But even if you could, in the end, they're using this clause from the constitution: > To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes. to give them jurisdiction in cases of Internet child pornography. The entity determining whether or not this jurisdiction is valid is not like a computer program that will look at a homebrew computer, check where all the parts came from, look at the text of the law, and say "Whoops, nothing in this case crossed state lines, we don't have jurisdiction, you're free to go." I see this attitude on HN way too often. Instead, remember that it's a bunch of humans who considered the problem of child pornography, chose to fight it, and only then looked for a source of jurisdiction. That source does not actually need to be valid (not that I actually dispute that the FBI should have jurisdiction when US citizens commit crimes using the Internet), but it's important to realize that it only needs to be strong enough to stand up to the political will to oppose it. And there are no prosecutors with a will or the political power to oppose the FBI for going after sexual predators. This state of affairs probably results in some overreach. But even considering the potential problems with this approach taken to the extreme, I find it extremely hard to align myself against the FBI. What if the FBI operated honeypot sites with zero-day exploits inserted for them by Microsoft, Apple, and Google, hacking modems and demanding ISPs snoop on their users, opposing HTTPS rollout, and generally causing great harm to law-abiding users of the internet? But these actions protected kids? How much harm would it take to shift my allegiance into opposing the FBI? Scary stuff.

pbhjpbhj 10y ago
>Instead, remember that it's a bunch of humans who considered the problem of child pornography, chose to fight it, and only then looked for a source of jurisdiction. // It's not my country but this is the thing that grates most with me, the "act first and try and find legal justification afterwards". Officers of the law should really be seeking to act legally in the first place. What you propose, companies creating a system of open reporting is fine by me, but doing it covertly is not. Enact laws allowing it and tell the public it's happening. That's the democratic way.

15155 10y ago

The wheat you grow for your family affects the market which is in another state - your family no longer buys wheat, reducing demand.