The defendant was found guilty in the original trial because a police raid found child porn. Read that last sentence again, carefully and repeatedly until it makes sense to you.
Do you imagine that trials are convened and conducted under Rules of Hearsay ? Perhaps this whole case is actually a Freedom of Expression test case ?
Child porn is illegal in Canada, and virtually everyone is aware of that. The only possible way to avoid conviction would be a technical matter over evidence or procedure. And that is PRECISELY what happened here.
I totally agree with you there. It appears that many people here have not bothered to acquaint themselves with the basics of the case and its appellate stages.
The Supreme Court case was adjudicated on a technicality over the original search warrant. The original trial had real physical child porn evidence.
The idea that the poor chap might have been the victim of spam, or over-zealous police, or browser pre-caching policies is total garbage.
The guy is a TOTAL sicko, and so are those people here who think he should be allowed to continue his sick hobby.
I am not getting into any debates about victimless crime or purchasing apples at a market or using dollars that may have once been stolen in a bank robbery. These ridiculous notions have been firmly rejected in every civilised country.
Have some people completely lost the ability to distinguish crimes from each other?
Yes it appears they have. This is not a debate about child porn. The matter is already settled in law - child porn is a serious crime in virtually every jurisdiction.
And the reasons are well-documented. People who are not happy with that, are entitled to lobby for their point of view.
But I would caution anyone against doing so. There is a very fine line between hypothetical discussion and outright advocacy.
The US 1st Amendment is not a charter for a free-for-all, and it most certainly does not apply in Canada. The principle of Consent is not applicable to children, in any case.
Yes, absolutely. The disgraceful tenor of some of the comments here is repulsive.
Everyone who advocates child porn here is SICK. And their IP addresses should be forwarded to approriate Law Enforcement.
Slashdot Mirror
The defendant was found guilty in the original trial because a police raid found child porn. Read that last sentence again, carefully and repeatedly until it makes sense to you. Do you imagine that trials are convened and conducted under Rules of Hearsay ? Perhaps this whole case is actually a Freedom of Expression test case ? Child porn is illegal in Canada, and virtually everyone is aware of that. The only possible way to avoid conviction would be a technical matter over evidence or procedure. And that is PRECISELY what happened here.
I totally agree with you there. It appears that many people here have not bothered to acquaint themselves with the basics of the case and its appellate stages. The Supreme Court case was adjudicated on a technicality over the original search warrant. The original trial had real physical child porn evidence. The idea that the poor chap might have been the victim of spam, or over-zealous police, or browser pre-caching policies is total garbage. The guy is a TOTAL sicko, and so are those people here who think he should be allowed to continue his sick hobby. I am not getting into any debates about victimless crime or purchasing apples at a market or using dollars that may have once been stolen in a bank robbery. These ridiculous notions have been firmly rejected in every civilised country.
Have some people completely lost the ability to distinguish crimes from each other?
Yes it appears they have. This is not a debate about child porn. The matter is already settled in law - child porn is a serious crime in virtually every jurisdiction. And the reasons are well-documented. People who are not happy with that, are entitled to lobby for their point of view. But I would caution anyone against doing so. There is a very fine line between hypothetical discussion and outright advocacy. The US 1st Amendment is not a charter for a free-for-all, and it most certainly does not apply in Canada. The principle of Consent is not applicable to children, in any case.
Yes, absolutely. The disgraceful tenor of some of the comments here is repulsive. Everyone who advocates child porn here is SICK. And their IP addresses should be forwarded to approriate Law Enforcement.