Child porn is very bad and, I am in no way defending it. However, Given the understanding of what is known as entrapment. Is it legal at all to for the FBI to even post the Child pornography hyperlinks in the first place.? Or what weigh would the case bring when it came to trial?
Entrapment: "A person is 'entrapped' when he is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit; and the law as a matter of policy forbids conviction in such a case" " However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the Government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime. For example, it is not entrapment for a Government agent to pretend to be someone else and to offer, either directly or through an informer or decoy, to engage in an unlawful transaction with the person. So, a person would not be a victim of entrapment if the person was ready, willing and able to commit the crime charged in the indictment whenever opportunity was afforded, and that Government officers or their agents did no more than offer an opportunity."
"On the other hand, if the evidence leaves a reasonable doubt whether the person had any intent to commit the crime except for inducement or persuasion on the part of some Government officer or agent, then the person is not guilty."
By simply placing a hyper link on the Internet, How can any law enforcement agency determine whether a person previously intentioned to visit a child pornography web sit had the link not been introduced. Or, whether it was the person owning the IP addresses clicking the link at all.
An argument by the FBI in this case could be raised, if they placed the ads under the search phrase implying underage children in the act of pornography. However, if a link under these search phrases where clicked, how could they prove that the person clicking the link was not lead there by other means then his own persuasion, that the person had for-though and intent, or that it was the owner if the IP address that acutely clicked on the link.
Could it have been another person living in the house or a visitor? Is the computer that originated the click the computer that holds the IP address? Was there a wireless connection that was hijacked? It seems to me that the FBI is fishing... Most likely they are hoping that will catch a pedophile that has been surfing the net and collecting child porn for a long time. At the expense of innocent people.
In the article a young man was arrested and charged with "attempts" to download child pornography. I have to question if clicking a link constitutes anything similar to downloading?
The Court does not see it this way though. As Harvey Silverglate when asked how to keep the stop the FBI from expanding this hyperlink sting stated, ""Because the courts have been so narrow in their definition of 'entrapment,' and so expansive in their definition of 'probable cause,' there is nothing to stop the Feds from acting as you posit."
The biggest question here is what is our intent when we click on a hyperlink?
The two most important thing's I feel must be considered out of this is, we really need to guard our self's as well as know what is happening on our computers and with our internet connection.
Also, what next. If we allow our law enforcement agencies and court systems to continually re-write the interpretation of entrapment and probable cause to fit what ever their need and causes might be, we run the risk of losing every conservable defense any innocent person might have. Also the precept that every man is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Slashdot Mirror
Child porn is very bad and, I am in no way defending it. However, Given the understanding of what is known as entrapment. Is it legal at all to for the FBI to even post the Child pornography hyperlinks in the first place.? Or what weigh would the case bring when it came to trial?
Entrapment: "A person is 'entrapped' when he is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit; and the law as a matter of policy forbids conviction in such a case"
"
However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the Government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime. For example, it is not entrapment for a Government agent to pretend to be someone else and to offer, either directly or through an informer or decoy, to engage in an unlawful transaction with the person. So, a person would not be a victim of entrapment if the person was ready, willing and able to commit the crime charged in the indictment whenever opportunity was afforded, and that Government officers or their agents did no more than offer an opportunity."
"On the other hand, if the evidence leaves a reasonable doubt whether the person had any intent to commit the crime except for inducement or persuasion on the part of some Government officer or agent, then the person is not guilty."
By simply placing a hyper link on the Internet, How can any law enforcement agency determine whether a person previously intentioned to visit a child pornography web sit had the link not been introduced. Or, whether it was the person owning the IP addresses clicking the link at all.
An argument by the FBI in this case could be raised, if they placed the ads under the search phrase implying underage children in the act of pornography. However, if a link under these search phrases where clicked, how could they prove that the person clicking the link was not lead there by other means then his own persuasion, that the person had for-though and intent, or that it was the owner if the IP address that acutely clicked on the link.
Could it have been another person living in the house or a visitor? Is the computer that originated the click the computer that holds the IP address? Was there a wireless connection that was hijacked?
It seems to me that the FBI is fishing... Most likely they are hoping that will catch a pedophile that has been surfing the net and collecting child porn for a long time. At the expense of innocent people.
In the article a young man was arrested and charged with "attempts" to download child pornography. I have to question if clicking a link constitutes anything similar to downloading?
The Court does not see it this way though. As Harvey Silverglate when asked how to keep the stop the FBI from expanding this hyperlink sting stated, ""Because the courts have been so narrow in their definition of 'entrapment,' and so expansive in their definition of 'probable cause,' there is nothing to stop the Feds from acting as you posit."
The biggest question here is what is our intent when we click on a hyperlink?
The two most important thing's I feel must be considered out of this is, we really need to guard our self's as well as know what is happening on our computers and with our internet connection.
Also, what next. If we allow our law enforcement agencies and court systems to continually re-write the interpretation of entrapment and probable cause to fit what ever their need and causes might be, we run the risk of losing every conservable defense any innocent person might have. Also the precept that every man is presumed innocent until proven guilty.