9 ms·

"So imagine a scenario ten years down the road, as you’re taking a stroll in the park." .... "WHAM. You are now a criminal, guilty of recording, distrib

"So imagine a scenario ten years down the road, as you’re taking a stroll in the park." .... "WHAM. You are now a criminal, guilty of recording, distributing, and possessing child pornography." I find this highly implausible. Hypotheticals like this damage the argument. Crimes are caught on camera everyday. Seems to me the crime here (aside form the rape) is to knowingly destroy evidence of the crime, which the innocent strollers in this scenario are supposedly encouraged to do out fear for themselves. I have not thought about this enough to have a strong opinion other than simple gut reaction, but it seems more evidence to support this idea in particular is needed.

drcube 14y ago
In this case both destroying the evidence and possessing the evidence are crimes. What are you supposed to do?
- birdcircle 14y ago
  I challenge anyone to find actual foundation for the claim that unwittingly recording a child rape in the park is a crime even if the witness reports it and provides the video evidence. Seems to me that this is the "slippery slope" argument taken to unreasonable extremes.
  - stickfigure 14y ago
    Twenty years ago I would have challenged someone to find a case of a 17 year old being prosecuted for child pornography for taking a picture of themselves. Or a 19 year old being forced to register as a sex offender because of a 17 year old partner. These laws have already been pushed to unreasonable extremes.
    - birdcircle 14y ago
      Like I said I haven't thought about or researched this enough to have a strong opinion so I'm relying on really basic assumptions. "a case of a 17 year old being prosecuted for child pornography for taking a picture of themselves." Has this happened? Hypotheticals don't help any. We need facts in order to move forward with the conversation. EDIT: it has, in fact, happened. The facts are indeed in Google.
  - wnoise 14y ago
    It satisfies the elements specified in the law. By definition it's a crime. Now, it's quite possible that the police and prosecutors will be reasonable and not prosecute it... but prosecutors and police are human, and quite possible to be unreasonable. In fact, they have great incentive to prosecute open-and-shut cases and rack up their conviction count.
  - bentoner 14y ago
    Here's a description of a similar case that discusses the catch-22 that the witness is in: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=2xkDvMQlh-YC&pg=PA232#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com.au/books?id=2xkDvMQlh-YC&pg=PA23...
  - darkarmani 14y ago
    There is no need to slip before the argument is valid, so there is no slippery slope argument.
- lotharbot 14y ago
  possessing the evidence is a crime, unless you can make an "affirmative defense" (I've commented about it elsewhere on this page.) One form of "affirmative defense" is "contact law enforcement and turn over the recording". This is what you are supposed to do (standard disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice.)
- Symmetry 14y ago
  They're both crimes, but you're much less likely to get arrested if you don't go to the police.

drcube 14y ago

In this case both destroying the evidence and possessing the evidence are crimes. What are you supposed to do?

birdcircle 14y ago
I challenge anyone to find actual foundation for the claim that unwittingly recording a child rape in the park is a crime even if the witness reports it and provides the video evidence. Seems to me that this is the "slippery slope" argument taken to unreasonable extremes.
- stickfigure 14y ago
  Twenty years ago I would have challenged someone to find a case of a 17 year old being prosecuted for child pornography for taking a picture of themselves. Or a 19 year old being forced to register as a sex offender because of a 17 year old partner. These laws have already been pushed to unreasonable extremes.
  - birdcircle 14y ago
    Like I said I haven't thought about or researched this enough to have a strong opinion so I'm relying on really basic assumptions. "a case of a 17 year old being prosecuted for child pornography for taking a picture of themselves." Has this happened? Hypotheticals don't help any. We need facts in order to move forward with the conversation. EDIT: it has, in fact, happened. The facts are indeed in Google.
- wnoise 14y ago
  It satisfies the elements specified in the law. By definition it's a crime. Now, it's quite possible that the police and prosecutors will be reasonable and not prosecute it... but prosecutors and police are human, and quite possible to be unreasonable. In fact, they have great incentive to prosecute open-and-shut cases and rack up their conviction count.
- bentoner 14y ago
  Here's a description of a similar case that discusses the catch-22 that the witness is in: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=2xkDvMQlh-YC&pg=PA232#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com.au/books?id=2xkDvMQlh-YC&pg=PA23...
- darkarmani 14y ago
  There is no need to slip before the argument is valid, so there is no slippery slope argument.
lotharbot 14y ago
possessing the evidence is a crime, unless you can make an "affirmative defense" (I've commented about it elsewhere on this page.) One form of "affirmative defense" is "contact law enforcement and turn over the recording". This is what you are supposed to do (standard disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice.)
Symmetry 14y ago
They're both crimes, but you're much less likely to get arrested if you don't go to the police.