3 ms·

At minimum, there needs a mens rea requirement on all child porn statutes. As of right now, someone emailing you an unsolicited CP image means you have broken

At minimum, there needs a mens rea requirement on all child porn statutes. As of right now, someone emailing you an unsolicited CP image means you have broken the law, with absolutely no intent on your side. In fact, this is an avenue of attacking someone, but sending them these pictures. A mens rea would require that the person intended or requested these be sent, and necessitate proof of that. Long story short, I'm against statutory laws by and large. There's almost always a potential justifiable defense, even to homicide. There's also classes of crimes which aren't crimes if there's no mindful intent.

jstarfish 8y ago
In what jurisdiction? The US does have mens rea. Mere possession isnt enough; it has to be proven that you sought it, or knew what it was and kept it, and (variable) be in possession of 3 or more artifacts. Keeping it, hiding it in a buried folder and renaming the files using terms common only amongst exploitation rings does not help your defense against any of these factors. Lots of claims of non-solicitation get made--nobody is going to admit otherwise--but after forensics it always turns out to either truly be a really shitty prank or the recipient was way more involved than they were willing to admit. Nobody gets prosecuted for simply being on the wrong end of an email. There is always more to the story.
- crankylinuxuser 8y ago
  Then I would encourage you to study the law behind the statutes.. https://yalelawtech.org/2009/11/02/why-mens-rea-should-be-applied-to-child-pornography-laws/ https://yalelawtech.org/2009/11/02/why-mens-rea-should-be-ap... "In Osborne v. Ohio, the United States Supreme Court explained that laws making possession of pornography a crime, regardless of the circumstances, were constitutional. " However there are beginning to be some cracks in the strict liability from this case where a 16 year old lied about her age and obtained fake drivers license credentials stating the fraudulent age. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/08/08/no-strict-liability-for-soliciting-minor-online-for-sex-if-minor-claimed-she-was-above-the-age-of-consent/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.43decfa9b130 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201... Obviously, each state can have its own laws. But the key here is "strict liability" versus "mens rea". And no, prosecutorial discretion is no substitute for mens rea.

jstarfish 8y ago

In what jurisdiction? The US does have mens rea. Mere possession isnt enough; it has to be proven that you sought it, or knew what it was and kept it, and (variable) be in possession of 3 or more artifacts. Keeping it, hiding it in a buried folder and renaming the files using terms common only amongst exploitation rings does not help your defense against any of these factors. Lots of claims of non-solicitation get made--nobody is going to admit otherwise--but after forensics it always turns out to either truly be a really shitty prank or the recipient was way more involved than they were willing to admit. Nobody gets prosecuted for simply being on the wrong end of an email. There is always more to the story.

crankylinuxuser 8y ago
Then I would encourage you to study the law behind the statutes.. https://yalelawtech.org/2009/11/02/why-mens-rea-should-be-applied-to-child-pornography-laws/ https://yalelawtech.org/2009/11/02/why-mens-rea-should-be-ap... "In Osborne v. Ohio, the United States Supreme Court explained that laws making possession of pornography a crime, regardless of the circumstances, were constitutional. " However there are beginning to be some cracks in the strict liability from this case where a 16 year old lied about her age and obtained fake drivers license credentials stating the fraudulent age. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/08/08/no-strict-liability-for-soliciting-minor-online-for-sex-if-minor-claimed-she-was-above-the-age-of-consent/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.43decfa9b130 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201... Obviously, each state can have its own laws. But the key here is "strict liability" versus "mens rea". And no, prosecutorial discretion is no substitute for mens rea.