4 ms·
Yeah, that's not the part that I'm disagreeing with. Specifically: > If MSFT has indexed without showing any good faith effort to avoid indexing then the DOJ
by arbitrage 8y ago
Yeah, that's not the part that I'm disagreeing with.
Specifically:
> If MSFT has indexed without showing any good faith effort to avoid indexing then the DOJ can and should prosecute
That's not how it works. At all. That part right there.
- crankylinuxuser 8y agoFor statutory crimes, this is how it works for people. "We don't care the reason or mitigating circumstances you have, or even if you did it. You have the $thing , so you're at fault." (The -1's, this is how statutory crimes work. I'm stating a fact, not making ethical determinations about it. I personally think that mens rea absolutely needs to be incorporated at a minimum.)
- dmurray 8y agoThe phrase you are looking for is "strict liability offence".
- jkartchner 8y agoAs I've mentioned above, child porn is NOT a strict liability crime. The prosecutor will definitely need to prove you knew or should have known it was child porn.
- monocasa 8y agoIn many states, the possession of child pornography is absolutely a strict liability offence. For instance: https://kellerlawoffices.com/child-pornography-accidental-possession-defense-possible/ https://kellerlawoffices.com/child-pornography-accidental-po...