"while with the Amazon situation the buyers were aware of the mistake on the seller part, something which makes the case simpler to me."
Amazon will eat the cost if anyone refuses to pay or return. I've dealt with amazon before and twice they've sent me the wrong item and I just refused to return it at my expense and Amazon told me to just keep it with their compliments. That is to say: they refunded the purchase price AND let me keep the item.
They can't correct a mistake by billing your credit card without consent. Their only remedy is to take you to court if they really think you owe them. However they wont bother because they would lose. They can't prove that the buyer contributed to them making a mistake. The buyer is only on the hook if the buyer CAUSED the mistake in the first place by commiting fraud. Just because I notice you making a mistake that doesn't make me responsible in any way unless I commit fraud or try to conceal your error from you.
A mere anulling of the contract would not allow Amazon to charge you. If there is no contract then IT IS A GIFT.
You've got it in your hands and you didn't steal it. The lawful owner SENT IT TO YOU. Its yours.
What proof is there Amazon actually did this by accident? By your legal theory Amazon could send out DVD's to random people and then since there is no contract charge their credit cards afterwards.
In fact: without a contract, its yours to keep or dispose of as you wish. Amazon could never establish in court that this wasn't a scam on their part and it sure as hell looks like a scam if they are violating credit card vendor agreements and billing credit cards without authorization.
So as to not be unfair to Amazon. I am repeating that based on my experience with Amazon, I am quite confident they will EAT the loss and be gracious about it.
I agree with that. At least you are one of the few people on slashdot who properly blaim the statute. Rather than blaim the individuals who are charged with enforcing it.
We can't trust our freedom to the arbitrary discretion of the DA. If something is important it should be put into writing. It would be no great trouble for lawmakers to put into the statute language which says "no person may be convicted under this section where it is shown that they were under the age of 18 at the time of the offense" or "No person may be convicted under this section where it is shown that the child pornography included a depiction of no person other than himself or herself".
this leaves the child pornography illegal while granting immunity to the children depicted in it.
Or "It is not an offence where the purported child pornography does not depict an act which would itself otherwise constitute an offence".
The very notion of criminalizing the possession of pictures of legal activity strikes me as oppressive and illogical. If the underlying act is not illegal, then there is no purpose in criminalizing pictures of it.
Unless you consider deterring naughty thoughts to be a legitimate purpose of the criminal justice system. And if that was the case we would not need churches.
Nonetheless, the proper subject of criticism is not the DA or the judge. They properly followed the law, and that is the best we could ever hope for if we had a DA and judge whose WORST fault was to follow the law.
"So? Plenty of people breach the letter of the law without doing anything wrong. Morality and legality are only occasionally related."
I never said they did something immoral, I said they did something illegal.
"I'm just stunned at the abject stupidity displayed by your remarks. What do you think the purpose of judges and juries is? Because it's clear you don't know, I'll answer my own question: judges and juries decide if an action that appears to violate a law actually is a criminal action."
And that does not include twisting the meanings of words so that acts which they imagine were not harmful are excluded from the statute.
"It's the difference between the accused and the convicted."
in this case they were convicted. And the conviction was upheld by the court of appeals.
"In this particular case, the actions of these kids harmed nobody. "
This is irrelevant. Now YOU are confusing legality with morality. Something doesn't need to actually HARM someone in every instance in order to be illegal.
"Any reasonable interpretation of anti-child-porn laws is that they are intended to protect innocent children from predatory adults. As in: DOESN'T APPLY HERE."
These are NOT "innocent children". These are convicted sex offenders. And moreoever the PURPOSE of the law is of very minimal persuasive importance in the determination of whether or not someone broke it. As soon as you start making PURPOSE important then you will start convicting people who are technically innocent but have run afoul of the laws purpose. The Nazi's were fond of this tactic.
"You are a font of unadulterated bullshit. "
well.. if thats what you think of the law, then I'm not suprised you dont understand it.
"The prosecution has the power to choose its cases. In this case, they chose to do the damage they did. Hiding behind "the law" is the act of a coward who refuses to accept responsibility for their actions."
"When a law applies to a situation only when people of a certain age are involved, the law should apply differently to offenders of different ages, yes."
The law should be applied the way it says it should be applied in the statute, interpretted according to the rules of legal interpretation and based on past precedent.
Courts are not free to invent new methods for interpretting law on a case by case basis just because the accused is well loved or much hated by society.
" Charging kids with sex crimes to prevent exploitation of minors is like f*cking for virginity.... There are three problems here:
1. The law fails to take into account the relative age of the two parties (the one who was photographed and the one possessing it).
2. The law fails to take into account that anyone who can be tried as an adult should also be competent to make decisions of a sexual nature.
3. The law fails to take into account whether the minor was in any way coerced (or even asked) to take the photos.
"
There is no requirement that laws take into account any of the factors you cite. The only requirement is the law is not vague and the law does not run afoul of the constitution or florida or the bill of rights. The court has no other basis to overturn a law.
"I'm sure this case will get overturned on appeal, "
"Once you stop foaming at the mouth, perhaps you can issue an apology."
oopsdude was not foaming at the mouth. He was educating you and others on the way the law works.
"Instead of becoming enraged, you should have read the next line in that post: "That alone should be enough to negate the kiddie porn charges for the pictures of themselves." -- I think this should make it very clear where the OP stands on this issue."
An interesting legal argument but irrelevant. The issue of being tried as an adult deals with mental maturity of the accused at the time of the offense. Child pornography only deals with what is depicted in the picture. The real world mental age of the person in the picture is not material to the depiction. In fact in many areas even if the person in the picture is OVER 18 years old, it could still be child pornography if it appears to depict someone under 18.
The problem is the law attempts to criminalize things that MAY OR MAY NOT be harmful "just to be sure".
People have bought into the right wing hysteria that police and cops are powerless to fight crime and have demanded that legislature criminalize all sorts of INNOCENT behavior just to be sure no crime slips through the cracks. Apparently we are no longer capable of using such age old behavioral modification techniques such as RIDICULE or SCORN for those grey areas. Everything has to involve a jail sentence, castration and branding for life.
This is the society you wanted.
If you are serious about changing it, at least lobby the proper people. LAWMAKERS. oopsdude was simply trying to HELP YOU.
On the otherhand if you think the DA should have the power to decide who and what to prosecute.. then you have nothing to complain about anyway.
"Ultimately, the responsibility for any action rests with the person who engages in it."
So rather than blaim the people of florida for passing such cruel and vindictive laws, you blaim the judges and prosecution who are duty sworn to uphold them. VERY FAIR OF YOU!
What you are saying is that the judges and the prosecution should have quit their jobs over this. That is the ONLY course of action open to them.
Have you considered refusing to pay taxes? By paying taxes you support the system which is keeping these kids locked up.
Have you looked at your own state laws regarding child pornography? Do you think they are any better?
"One of the three judges apparently did not think they broke the law, so it's not nearly as black and white as you try to portray it."
What is black and white is that if you are upset, you should be upset with the LAW, not with the judges. It is interesting but legally irrevelant if one of the judges dissented in this case. The majority of appeal court judges agreed, and so did the TRIAL judge.
"Also, even if what they did violated laws on child pornography, there is the separate issue of expectation of privacy."
You are right. This is an entirely seperate and MOREOVER irrelevant issue. If the police conducted an illegal search and seizure then they could have had the evidence quashed on that basis. However, as this did not happen we can only assume that the evidence was seized LAWFULLY and therefore there is no issue of reasonable expectation of privacy. The 4th ammendment does not give you immunity to being searched. It merely requires a warrant of a judge based on probable grounds.
"Regardless of that, the reason there is a system where people don't automatically get charged but one where district attorneys decide whether to press charges, is to attempt to ensure that justice is done - charges are dropped or not raised in the first place all the time when prosecuting a case isn't in the public interest."
Who says this was not in the public interest? Some dangerous criminals have been identified and will be branded for life, and prevented from ever participating in society like normal citizens. Justice is served.
You are obviously not qualified to determine what is in the public interest because the District Attourney DISAGREES with you. And it is HIS/HER job to determine this. If you dont like it, then you should not have such blind faith in the ability of the DA to exercise discretion and instead you should demand that laws are written unambiguously. but wait.. THEY WERE. What these children did is ILLEGAL. Your only issue is that you are squeemish about punishing kids for something that you have no qualms about destroying an adult over. You dont like to think of children of being capable of immorality or evil or whatever it is that fuels the hysteria over sex and pornography.
If you disagree with that law then have the LAW CHANGED. Don't whine because "justice was served" to the letter.
Floridians HAVE FORSEEN THIS. Don't pretend that legislature is caught by suprise. They have been at this for a LONG TIME.
What you are advocating is that the DA should simply REFUSE to enforce the law against certain groups it deems the law ought not apply. That would amount to a break down of the government and invite vigilanteeism as the public would then have no recourse but to take the law into their own hands.
If you think this case is so black and white, why did legislature pass the law, and why did the governor approve it? Obviously the state is free to decide that children who make naughty pictures of themselves should be locked up for the good of society. And the DA and courts have no right to overrule this.
My understanding is that in florida, ex-cons can't vote. Therefore you have a system whereby the ONLY people who could have first hand experience being screwed over by illogical laws are banned from ever voting. You reap what you sow.
Perhaps you can visit the victims of your fair justice in prison. Or perhaps you should do now what you ought to have done before... speak out against kneejerk legislation and demand lawmakers fucking THINK before they pass a bill. Demand that everyone be allowed to vote, and that the rights of full citizenship be restored to a person once they have served their time.
While you're at it.. demand that ALL victimless crimes be decriminalized.
"As this ruling stands, it's not just pictures what would be illegal. If (as is the case in Canada) written stories can be considered pornographic, even love letters between these two could be considered child pornography. A Diary entry could also be considered child pornography because it's possible that their parents could check up on what their children are writing."
You're getting dangerously close to writing child pornography yourself by counseling that children should write each other love letters. What is your IP address?
"Children exchanging photos of them selfs naked is perhaps inappropriate. But it is certainly not child pornography!"
how is this certainly not child pornography? The definition of a document as being child pornography or not has nothing to do with the identity or age or the artist, writer or photographer.
"Sure, technically this is child pornography and technically there's a risk these pictures made it to the public. In reality however this prosecution alone did more harm than the bit of candid photography ever could."
It was the LAW that harmed them, not the prosecution. The prosecution is an inevitable effect of the law written as it is written.
However unless you want to make a legal industry for children to produce child porn of themselves... perhaps its better to lock these kids up and throw away the key.
"I don't know what these kids did to piss the prosecution and the court off, but there is clearly malicious intent here."
uhhh.. what they did was break the law.
The only evidence you have put forward of malice was they fact that the law was enforced. Are you proposing that laws should be selectively enforced on an adhoc basis?
Why aren't you pointing the finger at the public and at the legislature for writing such draconian and tyranical laws.
These kids clearly broke the law. Malice is when the prosecution attempts to prosecute for some justification OTHER than enforcing the law. It isn't malice to lock up these child child-pornographers; its the LAW.
"So, to sum up, the pharmaceutical system in the US is the best money could buy. "
Actually what you have done is prove that the US pharma system is about the WORST that money can buy.
Pushing placebos and snake oil on an uneducated public is NOT the right way to fund R&D.
Even if most R&D in breakthrough drugs was funded privately, which it is NOT. Most private R&D is in copycat drugs which provide little or no medical benefit over existing drugs and are pursued as a way to bust through the monopoly positions our inane patent system creates for other pharma companies. Private R&D is devoted primarily to discovering drugs which can penetrate already established markets.
Your statement that the US is "lapping" the socialized world" is nonsensical; Unless you mean lapping it in terms of healthcare profits. It is definitely not lapping anyone except the 3rd world in terms of healthcare outcomes, either on a dollar per dollar basis or even in absolute terms.
Have you compared life spans or mortality rates recently?
"There is no "right" to audit someone. The "right" is the right to sue. They are taking an action less than the legally allowed suing action as a convenience for all involved. A voluntary audit is much better than suing and being subject to a subpoena."
Assuming you are doing nothing wrong.. why should you fear being sued MORE than a voluntary audit?
The great thing about being sued is that you can countersue and moreover you can subpoena the person suing you right back. moreover if they sue you without reasonable cause they will be liable for your expenses when they lose and possibly punitive damages as well.
A voluntary audit is NOT better than being sued and subject to a subpoena. Because after you voluntarily submit to the audit you've just given them grounds to sue you anyway whereas before they had nothing. Once you have submitted to my audit then I can claim I've discovered whatever I want to claim and you'll have no way of disproving it. Moreover when you get sued the party suing you has to make public the GROUNDS upon which they are suing you.
A subpoena requires you to bring certain evidence to court. It doesn't require you to give microsoft access to your computer systems. Furthermore Microsofts inability to account for what you are doing on 100 computers, is not reasonable grounds to establish injury or harm and would cut short any legal action anyway.
Unless the court finds you have breeched the subpoena that will typically be the end of it. You have no obligation to prove what you are doing with your computer systems. The burden on proof lies on the plaintif, and unless microsoft has actual evidence of harm or injury and your connection to that harm or injury, or grounds to believe evidence of harm exists on your computer systems, a lawsuit is not going anywhere.
If voluntary audits are better than being sued, perhaps you should be advocating that all people should be OBLIGATED to submit to voluntary audits by any party at any time?
"For all I know, you are an alien. "For all you know" is not a legal defense, an affirmative, or a negative. It's simply an antagonistic response. With taunting like that, why should anyone treat you nicely?"
Actually you are wrong. "For all you know" is a valid legal defense when the burden of proof lies on the other side and they have nothing but speculation and no EVIDENCE to support their theory. There is no need to affirm or deny anything when the other side has the burden of proof.
"For all you know" is the same thing as saying "my friend has no evidence which establishes reasonable grounds for belief and therefor this court should dismiss this legal action".
However outside the court room its easier to say "for all you know".
In your model of justice all people are subject to arbitrary arrest and trial upon which they are required to prove they aren't guilty of random offenses pulled out of the plaintiff's ass.
"Yes. Only the United States is to blame. India, Israel, the UK, and France would gladly give up their nukes because the only thing they are afraid of is an American attack."
The United States is the only country which has ever used a nuclear weapon offensively.
The united states has 6 to 10 times as many nuclear weapons as all the rest of the world combined excluding Russia. It also spends as much on conventional weapons as the rest of the world combined.
It doesn't much matter whether or not any other country might have a reason to not go along. Russia has been dismantling weapons faster than the US and has not demonstrated any desire to resume the arms race. Any other country can be persuaded to give up its nukes to avoid economic sanctions.
most rational people understand the inherent immorality of nuclear weapons. Hell.... How many Iraqi's died just because of some crazy President from Connecticut, who likes to pretend he is a Texan, dreamed that Saddam is trying to make a nuke?
Don't blaim France and the UK for the fact that Republicans and Democrats wants to resume the nuclear arms race.
According to my records if you have a computer you must be running my software. However I have no record of your purchase, therefore bend over and expose your anus for a voluntary rectal examination or else I will get the BSA to come over and ream you.
We need to create a new ABM treaty and take it further. Nuclear weapons are the one great threat to the very existence of mankind (that we have created ourself). They should be irradicated utterly, and no one whatsoever should have them at all. The current nuclear powers should disarm and the united nations should resolve that the mere development, construction or preperation to construct or develop nuclear weapons is itself a crime against humanity. Nuclear weapons should be utterly understood by all concerned to be off the table.
Of course the united states would never go for this as nuclear weapons are big business. so basically we're screwed.
It should be patently obvious to virtually anyone that a nuclear arms race is utterly immoral. arms races in general are immoral, but a nuclear arms races are so over the top immoral that it boggles the imagination.
"Anyone in the small business league at present SHOULD be adhering to any and all licensing necessary for the software they are using TO PRODUCE A PROFIT. If they aren't, well they best not try to expand beyond the term small business at any time in the future..."
And if they ARE adhering to any and all licensing necessary for the software they are using, should they still consent to an audit just to put Microsoft's mind at ease?
You are very presumptuous to assume that anyone who is complying with the law would not be offended at needing to PROVE it. If I am expected to trust you to examine my physical private property with nothing other than your word of honour that you aren't going to screw around with it, then you should be willing to accept my word of honour that I am not screwing around with your intellectual property.
And if you aren't willing to accept my word. then too bloody bad. Because my actual private property rights on the physical computer system TRUMP your speculative theory that it is illegal for me to buy 100 computers without buying 100 client licenses of microsoft windows. Obviously I'm using the computers for something OTHER than your software. Until such a time as the law says a person is required to buy quantities and ratios of software as decreed by microsoft, microsoft has no power to compell anyone to comply with such an audit. And threatening that a person will suffer some kind of negative consequence if they don't wave their rights to privacy is extortion, plain and simple.
"I bet this is big news to Americans: a government that can responsibly deter crime without infringing on the rights of the citizens. How did those darn Germans do it? Some sort of miraculous new technology? Maybe they've invented a porno-detector? Let's take a look!
only if the investigators meet certain conditions, including a concrete suspicion of illegal behavior and narrowly defined search criteria
--Sounds like a warrant."
Without judicial oversight this is not a warrant.
Moreover a warrant requires the judge to finally decide what the search cirteria are to be. In theory the judge is held to a higher standard and the evidence before a judge is part of the public record. Lastly a judge is required to be unbiased. Cops are not. Cops are always pro-prosecution.
"The database search was conducted by the credit-card companies, not the German police, which have no direct access to the financial records of people registered in Germany...They must have a concrete suspicion and provide very exact and limited search criteria.
--Sounds like responsible conduct."
delegating police investigations to the private sector is responsible conduct? This is almost the very essence of irresponsible conduct. It may protect the financial company from intrusion. It certainly doesn't protect the public. It puts the public at more risk. At least the police are supposed to serve the public good. Private companies are supposed to serve their own good nothing else.
"Bizer warned that credit-card data monitoring could lead to mistrust, especially if customers aren't properly informed.
--Sounds like an understanding of government, law, and proper oversight.
--Amazing!"
Bizer didn't warn that the law required customers to be informed. It merely suggested that they ought to be.. presumably at the discretion of private parties.
Where exactly do you see OVERSIGHT in this? Do you think the corporate sector should be overseeing the police?
There is no oversight. the police suspect whoever they want and then a private company hands over the data.. great oversight.
being a corrupt german cop has never been this good.
I said: You attach too much significance to "rights". They are legal fictions.
your reply: "Not in the U.S. Our Founding Fathers recognized that men were born with "natural rights". The Bill of Rights does not give us these rights, it merely recognizes them and basically says the government can't mess with them."
I'd be convinced if I considered the founding fathers to hold some kind of monopoly on truth and if I considered the Bill of Rights to be a philosophical memorandum rather than what it is : LEGISLATION.
A legal fiction is a legal fact that is true for the purposes of a court of law, without any regard to any truth in the real world.
The fact that "legally" there all men are created equal and imbued in inalienable right, does not in fact cause all men to be equal nor cause them to be imbued with anything.. or even to be CREATED for that matter. It is a paper document which directs the courts to PRETEND that it is true.
It is NOT reality, and what the founding fathers said is only relevant to what LEGALLY you can do to animals.. it says nothing about what you can MORALLY do to animals.
And yes.. the government infringes the bill of rights frequently. And the courts have allowed it to. (so has God apparently).
I said: Does man ever have a chance to put God on trial?
you replied: Every single day. A common example of this is a crisis of faith.
If that was a trial God would rotting in some prison cell with no possibility of parol for eternity.
According the Catholic faith and most god-of-abraham style religions you have no jurisdiction to question God. And to question God is a crime punishable by anything from excommunication, stoning, burning, or exile. According to Christian dogma you have a choice of FAITH for which you will be rewarded or disbelief for which you will burn in eternal hellfire.
A trial is a matter of PROOF and not FAITH.
Here is another legal fiction for you. We fantasize when a person is convicted of a crime that this means he really did it. It is a legal fiction.
It means the judge/jury found that he very most likely did it.. that the evidence shows he did it beyond a reasonable doubt, but NOT beyond all doubt. There is a small chance he didn't do it. It is a FACT that a number of people (one hopes is small, but it would be at least about 1%, but some argue it is closer to 20%) who are convicted didn't actually do anything wrong and everyone in the legal profession KNOWS THIS. Guilt is a legal FICTION. Likewise.. then a person is aquited.. that doesn't mean they didn't actually do it.
The legal system operates on legal fictions.. it is there so that in the majority of cases people are deterred from screwing around too much and making sure society can basically operate without resorting to endless violence and anarchy. It isn't there to try to find the absolute truth at any cost. The absolute truth has nothing to do with law. And likewise.. rights are NOT absolute truthes.. they are also legal fictions.. created by man to make it easier to justify certain moral concepts which are generally speaking usually true.
For example: The right to life.... the right we ignore when we execute someone.
If the right was truly INALIENABLE then no government could EVER execute someone. Because no matter how hard you try, you can not seperate an INALIENABLE THING. i.e. even the worst mass murderer or serial killer still has the right to life. And yet the US government kills them. As well as traitors. Which is strange considering a traitor obviously does not agree with the state and therefore the state by the logic of the declaration of independance has no sovereignty over him.
Am I blowing your mind? and you thought the world was so black and white didn't you?
anyway the point is... rights are a simplification. they are not essential truths of the universe.. and if you manage to prove animals have no rights it really means nothing because you can also prove humans have
I always argue that the entire notion of rights is a gross simplification of morality. (Somewhat necessary in order to have a comprehensible legal system)
To that end.. "animal rights" is also a simplification of the deeper moral principles.
useful for getting your message across and attracting activists (most of whome are also somewhat too philosophically unskilled to see the deeper issues).
if saying "animal rights" serves those deeper moral issues then it is moral to call it animal rights, regardless whether or not animals rights are in fact what exist.
but it would help if more animal rights activists were aware of this so they aren't stumped by arguments based on the logic of 'rights'.
the limited ability of rights to serve as moral decision making tools is made more obvious when people talk about abortion. both sides try to argue on the basis of rights.. and get no where..
"If you take on premise that there is nothing innately special about human beings (no soul, special resemblance to God, etc.), then the difference between humans and other species (particularly other higher primates) becomes one of degree rather than kind. I think it's a basically unavoidable conclusion, once you take being "anointed by God" out of the equation."
Why should it be an unavoidable conclusion just because you take "anointed by God" out of the equation? There is always something innately special about human beings: their resemblance to YOU.
"The non-hypocritical solutions, as I see it, are to either treat low-functioning homo sapiens as animals, or treat high-functioning animals (by which I mean certain species of marine mammals, chimpanzees, great apes; probably not really GSDs) as we would mentally-impaired humans."
You attach too much significance to "rights". They are legal fictions.
Does God give you the right to a fair trial? No. Does man ever have a chance to put God on trial? No.
So how do you get that somehow people have a right to a fair trial because man is annointed by God?
your little heirarchy suggests that a non-hypocritical solution would require us to treat smart people as having more rights than stupid people. The strong, more rights than the weak, the tall more rights than the short. its all arbitrary (if you resort to rights). rights are not useful except to teach morality to simpletons. rights are just convenient rules of thumb to help us remember how to treat each other. Just like when they say "driving is a priviledge and not a right"... its another legal fiction. Why isn't it a right? if private property is a right, freedom of travel is a right and you own a car, surely you have a right to drive it. They say you can push it but not drive it... on what basis?
rights don't tell us..
I sure as hell hope that dont expect the arbitrary rights we have dreamed up in the 20th century to be the full extent of moral reasons for anything the rest of time.
Slashdot Mirror
"while with the Amazon situation the buyers were aware of the mistake on the seller part, something which makes the case simpler to me."
Amazon will eat the cost if anyone refuses to pay or return. I've dealt with amazon before and twice they've sent me the wrong item and I just refused to return it at my expense and Amazon told me to just keep it with their compliments. That is to say: they refunded the purchase price AND let me keep the item.
They can't correct a mistake by billing your credit card without consent. Their only remedy is to take you to court if they really think you owe them. However they wont bother because they would lose. They can't prove that the buyer contributed to them making a mistake. The buyer is only on the hook if the buyer CAUSED the mistake in the first place by commiting fraud. Just because I notice you making a mistake that doesn't make me responsible in any way unless I commit fraud or try to conceal your error from you.
A mere anulling of the contract would not allow Amazon to charge you. If there is no contract then IT IS A GIFT.
You've got it in your hands and you didn't steal it. The lawful owner SENT IT TO YOU. Its yours.
What proof is there Amazon actually did this by accident? By your legal theory Amazon could send out DVD's to random people and then since there is no contract charge their credit cards afterwards.
In fact: without a contract, its yours to keep or dispose of as you wish. Amazon could never establish in court that this wasn't a scam on their part and it sure as hell looks like a scam if they are violating credit card vendor agreements and billing credit cards without authorization.
So as to not be unfair to Amazon. I am repeating that based on my experience with Amazon, I am quite confident they will EAT the loss and be gracious about it.
I agree with that. At least you are one of the few people on slashdot who properly blaim the statute. Rather than blaim the individuals who are charged with enforcing it.
We can't trust our freedom to the arbitrary discretion of the DA. If something is important it should be put into writing. It would be no great trouble for lawmakers to put into the statute language which says "no person may be convicted under this section where it is shown that they were under the age of 18 at the time of the offense" or "No person may be convicted under this section where it is shown that the child pornography included a depiction of no person other than himself or herself".
this leaves the child pornography illegal while granting immunity to the children depicted in it.
Or "It is not an offence where the purported child pornography does not depict an act which would itself otherwise constitute an offence".
The very notion of criminalizing the possession of pictures of legal activity strikes me as oppressive and illogical. If the underlying act is not illegal, then there is no purpose in criminalizing pictures of it.
Unless you consider deterring naughty thoughts to be a legitimate purpose of the criminal justice system. And if that was the case we would not need churches.
Nonetheless, the proper subject of criticism is not the DA or the judge. They properly followed the law, and that is the best we could ever hope for if we had a DA and judge whose WORST fault was to follow the law.
"So? Plenty of people breach the letter of the law without doing anything wrong. Morality and legality are only occasionally related."
I never said they did something immoral, I said they did something illegal.
"I'm just stunned at the abject stupidity displayed by your remarks. What do you think the purpose of judges and juries is? Because it's clear you don't know, I'll answer my own question: judges and juries decide if an action that appears to violate a law actually is a criminal action."
And that does not include twisting the meanings of words so that acts which they imagine were not harmful are excluded from the statute.
"It's the difference between the accused and the convicted."
in this case they were convicted. And the conviction was upheld by the court of appeals.
"In this particular case, the actions of these kids harmed nobody. "
This is irrelevant. Now YOU are confusing legality with morality. Something doesn't need to actually HARM someone in every instance in order to be illegal.
"Any reasonable interpretation of anti-child-porn laws is that they are intended to protect innocent children from predatory adults. As in: DOESN'T APPLY HERE."
These are NOT "innocent children". These are convicted sex offenders. And moreoever the PURPOSE of the law is of very minimal persuasive importance in the determination of whether or not someone broke it. As soon as you start making PURPOSE important then you will start convicting people who are technically innocent but have run afoul of the laws purpose. The Nazi's were fond of this tactic.
"You are a font of unadulterated bullshit. "
well.. if thats what you think of the law, then I'm not suprised you dont understand it.
"The prosecution has the power to choose its cases. In this case, they chose to do the damage they did. Hiding behind "the law" is the act of a coward who refuses to accept responsibility for their actions."
The act of an anonymous coward no doubt.
"When a law applies to a situation only when people of a certain age are involved, the law should apply differently to offenders of different ages, yes."
The law should be applied the way it says it should be applied in the statute, interpretted according to the rules of legal interpretation and based on past precedent.
Courts are not free to invent new methods for interpretting law on a case by case basis just because the accused is well loved or much hated by society.
"
Charging kids with sex crimes to prevent exploitation of minors is like f*cking for virginity.... There are three problems here:
1. The law fails to take into account the relative age of the two parties (the one who was photographed and the one possessing it).
2. The law fails to take into account that anyone who can be tried as an adult should also be competent to make decisions of a sexual nature.
3. The law fails to take into account whether the minor was in any way coerced (or even asked) to take the photos.
"
There is no requirement that laws take into account any of the factors you cite. The only requirement is the law is not vague and the law does not run afoul of the constitution or florida or the bill of rights. The court has no other basis to overturn a law.
"I'm sure this case will get overturned on appeal, "
Don't hold your breath.
"Once you stop foaming at the mouth, perhaps you can issue an apology."
oopsdude was not foaming at the mouth. He was educating you and others on the way the law works.
"Instead of becoming enraged, you should have read the next line in that post: "That alone should be enough to negate the kiddie porn charges for the pictures of themselves." -- I think this should make it very clear where the OP stands on this issue."
An interesting legal argument but irrelevant. The issue of being tried as an adult deals with mental maturity of the accused at the time of the offense. Child pornography only deals with what is depicted in the picture. The real world mental age of the person in the picture is not material to the depiction.
In fact in many areas even if the person in the picture is OVER 18 years old, it could still be child pornography if it appears to depict someone under 18.
The problem is the law attempts to criminalize things that MAY OR MAY NOT be harmful "just to be sure".
People have bought into the right wing hysteria that police and cops are powerless to fight crime and have demanded that legislature criminalize all sorts of INNOCENT behavior just to be sure no crime slips through the cracks. Apparently we are no longer capable of using such age old behavioral modification techniques such as RIDICULE or SCORN for those grey areas. Everything has to involve a jail sentence, castration and branding for life.
This is the society you wanted.
If you are serious about changing it, at least lobby the proper people. LAWMAKERS. oopsdude was simply trying to HELP YOU.
On the otherhand if you think the DA should have the power to decide who and what to prosecute.. then you have nothing to complain about anyway.
"Ultimately, the responsibility for any action rests with the person who engages in it."
So rather than blaim the people of florida for passing such cruel and vindictive laws, you blaim the judges and prosecution who are duty sworn to uphold them. VERY FAIR OF YOU!
What you are saying is that the judges and the prosecution should have quit their jobs over this. That is the ONLY course of action open to them.
Have you considered refusing to pay taxes? By paying taxes you support the system which is keeping these kids locked up.
Have you looked at your own state laws regarding child pornography? Do you think they are any better?
"One of the three judges apparently did not think they broke the law, so it's not nearly as black and white as you try to portray it."
What is black and white is that if you are upset, you should be upset with the LAW, not with the judges. It is interesting but legally irrevelant if one of the judges dissented in this case. The majority of appeal court judges agreed, and so did the TRIAL judge.
"Also, even if what they did violated laws on child pornography, there is the separate issue of expectation of privacy."
You are right. This is an entirely seperate and MOREOVER irrelevant issue. If the police conducted an illegal search and seizure then they could have had the evidence quashed on that basis. However, as this did not happen we can only assume that the evidence was seized LAWFULLY and therefore there is no issue of reasonable expectation of privacy. The 4th ammendment does not give you immunity to being searched. It merely requires a warrant of a judge based on probable grounds.
"Regardless of that, the reason there is a system where people don't automatically get charged but one where district attorneys decide whether to press charges, is to attempt to ensure that justice is done - charges are dropped or not raised in the first place all the time when prosecuting a case isn't in the public interest."
Who says this was not in the public interest? Some dangerous criminals have been identified and will be branded for life, and prevented from ever participating in society like normal citizens. Justice is served.
You are obviously not qualified to determine what is in the public interest because the District Attourney DISAGREES with you. And it is HIS/HER job to determine this. If you dont like it, then you should not have such blind faith in the ability of the DA to exercise discretion and instead you should demand that laws are written unambiguously. but wait.. THEY WERE. What these children did is ILLEGAL. Your only issue is that you are squeemish about punishing kids for something that you have no qualms about destroying an adult over. You dont like to think of children of being capable of immorality or evil or whatever it is that fuels the hysteria over sex and pornography.
If you disagree with that law then have the LAW CHANGED. Don't whine because "justice was served" to the letter.
Floridians HAVE FORSEEN THIS. Don't pretend that legislature is caught by suprise. They have been at this for a LONG TIME.
What you are advocating is that the DA should simply REFUSE to enforce the law against certain groups it deems the law ought not apply. That would amount to a break down of the government and invite vigilanteeism as the public would then have no recourse but to take the law into their own hands.
If you think this case is so black and white, why did legislature pass the law, and why did the governor approve it? Obviously the state is free to decide that children who make naughty pictures of themselves should be locked up for the good of society. And the DA and courts have no right to overrule this.
My understanding is that in florida, ex-cons can't vote. Therefore you have a system whereby the ONLY people who could have first hand experience being screwed over by illogical laws are banned from ever voting. You reap what you sow.
Perhaps you can visit the victims of your fair justice in prison. Or perhaps you should do now what you ought to have done before... speak out against kneejerk legislation and demand lawmakers fucking THINK before they pass a bill. Demand that everyone be allowed to vote, and that the rights of full citizenship be restored to a person once they have served their time.
While you're at it.. demand that ALL victimless crimes be decriminalized.
"As this ruling stands, it's not just pictures what would be illegal. If (as is the case in Canada) written stories can be considered pornographic, even love letters between these two could be considered child pornography. A Diary entry could also be considered child pornography because it's possible that their parents could check up on what their children are writing."
You're getting dangerously close to writing child pornography yourself by counseling that children should write each other love letters. What is your IP address?
"Children exchanging photos of them selfs naked is perhaps inappropriate. But it is certainly not child pornography!"
how is this certainly not child pornography? The definition of a document as being child pornography or not has nothing to do with the identity or age or the artist, writer or photographer.
"Sure, technically this is child pornography and technically there's a risk these pictures made it to the public. In reality however this prosecution alone did more harm than the bit of candid photography ever could."
It was the LAW that harmed them, not the prosecution. The prosecution is an inevitable effect of the law written as it is written.
However unless you want to make a legal industry for children to produce child porn of themselves... perhaps its better to lock these kids up and throw away the key.
"I don't know what these kids did to piss the prosecution and the court off, but there is clearly malicious intent here."
uhhh.. what they did was break the law.
The only evidence you have put forward of malice was they fact that the law was enforced. Are you proposing that laws should be selectively enforced on an adhoc basis?
Why aren't you pointing the finger at the public and at the legislature for writing such draconian and tyranical laws.
These kids clearly broke the law. Malice is when the prosecution attempts to prosecute for some justification OTHER than enforcing the law. It isn't malice to lock up these child child-pornographers; its the LAW.
"So, to sum up, the pharmaceutical system in the US is the best money could buy. "
Actually what you have done is prove that the US pharma system is about the WORST that money can buy.
Pushing placebos and snake oil on an uneducated public is NOT the right way to fund R&D.
Even if most R&D in breakthrough drugs was funded privately, which it is NOT. Most private R&D is in copycat drugs which provide little or no medical benefit over existing drugs and are pursued as a way to bust through the monopoly positions our inane patent system creates for other pharma companies. Private R&D is devoted primarily to discovering drugs which can penetrate already established markets.
Your statement that the US is "lapping" the socialized world" is nonsensical; Unless you mean lapping it in terms of healthcare profits. It is definitely not lapping anyone except the 3rd world in terms of healthcare outcomes, either on a dollar per dollar basis or even in absolute terms.
Have you compared life spans or mortality rates recently?
"There is no "right" to audit someone. The "right" is the right to sue. They are taking an action less than the legally allowed suing action as a convenience for all involved. A voluntary audit is much better than suing and being subject to a subpoena."
Assuming you are doing nothing wrong.. why should you fear being sued MORE than a voluntary audit?
The great thing about being sued is that you can countersue and moreover you can subpoena the person suing you right back. moreover if they sue you without reasonable cause they will be liable for your expenses when they lose and possibly punitive damages as well.
A voluntary audit is NOT better than being sued and subject to a subpoena. Because after you voluntarily submit to the audit you've just given them grounds to sue you anyway whereas before they had nothing. Once you have submitted to my audit then I can claim I've discovered whatever I want to claim and you'll have no way of disproving it. Moreover when you get sued the party suing you has to make public the GROUNDS upon which they are suing you.
A subpoena requires you to bring certain evidence to court. It doesn't require you to give microsoft access to your computer systems.
Furthermore Microsofts inability to account for what you are doing on 100 computers, is not reasonable grounds to establish injury or harm and would cut short any legal action anyway.
Unless the court finds you have breeched the subpoena that will typically be the end of it. You have no obligation to prove what you are doing with your computer systems. The burden on proof lies on the plaintif, and unless microsoft has actual evidence of harm or injury and your connection to that harm or injury, or grounds to believe evidence of harm exists on your computer systems, a lawsuit is not going anywhere.
If voluntary audits are better than being sued, perhaps you should be advocating that all people should be OBLIGATED to submit to voluntary audits by any party at any time?
"For all I know, you are an alien. "For all you know" is not a legal defense, an affirmative, or a negative. It's simply an antagonistic response. With taunting like that, why should anyone treat you nicely?"
Actually you are wrong. "For all you know" is a valid legal defense when the burden of proof lies on the other side and they have nothing but speculation and no EVIDENCE to support their theory. There is no need to affirm or deny anything when the other side has the burden of proof.
"For all you know" is the same thing as saying "my friend has no evidence which establishes reasonable grounds for belief and therefor this court should dismiss this legal action".
However outside the court room its easier to say "for all you know".
In your model of justice all people are subject to arbitrary arrest and trial upon which they are required to prove they aren't guilty of random offenses pulled out of the plaintiff's ass.
"MAD may have kept us only one RCH away from hell but that was all that was required."
luckily. care to go again? double or nothing?
" Something I do not understand is this feeling of entitlement with regards to not being offended. "
And I do not understand this feeling of entitlement that you have that makes you think you have the right to audit me.
"If its too much of a hassle, use different software."
For all you know I *AM* using different software.
You presume an awful lot about what I do with my own private property.
"I hate to break this to you, but honour and ethics do not go very far in court."
and what would you know about that?
"Yes. Only the United States is to blame. India, Israel, the UK, and France would gladly give up their nukes because the only thing they are afraid of is an American attack."
The United States is the only country which has ever used a nuclear weapon offensively.
The united states has 6 to 10 times as many nuclear weapons as all the rest of the world combined excluding Russia. It also spends as much on conventional weapons as the rest of the world combined.
It doesn't much matter whether or not any other country might have a reason to not go along. Russia has been dismantling weapons faster than the US and has not demonstrated any desire to resume the arms race. Any other country can be persuaded to give up its nukes to avoid economic sanctions.
most rational people understand the inherent immorality of nuclear weapons. Hell.... How many Iraqi's died just because of some crazy President from Connecticut, who likes to pretend he is a Texan, dreamed that Saddam is trying to make a nuke?
Don't blaim France and the UK for the fact that Republicans and Democrats wants to resume the nuclear arms race.
According to my records if you have a computer you must be running my software. However I have no record of your purchase, therefore bend over and expose your anus for a voluntary rectal examination or else I will get the BSA to come over and ream you.
You dont have a problem with that do you?
We need to create a new ABM treaty and take it further. Nuclear weapons are the one great threat to the very existence of mankind (that we have created ourself). They should be irradicated utterly, and no one whatsoever should have them at all. The current nuclear powers should disarm and the united nations should resolve that the mere development, construction or preperation to construct or develop nuclear weapons is itself a crime against humanity. Nuclear weapons should be utterly understood by all concerned to be off the table.
Of course the united states would never go for this as nuclear weapons are big business. so basically we're screwed.
It should be patently obvious to virtually anyone that a nuclear arms race is utterly immoral. arms races in general are immoral, but a nuclear arms races are so over the top immoral that it boggles the imagination.
"Anyone in the small business league at present SHOULD be adhering to any and all licensing necessary for the software they are using TO PRODUCE A PROFIT. If they aren't, well they best not try to expand beyond the term small business at any time in the future..."
And if they ARE adhering to any and all licensing necessary for the software they are using, should they still consent to an audit just to put Microsoft's mind at ease?
You are very presumptuous to assume that anyone who is complying with the law would not be offended at needing to PROVE it. If I am expected to trust you to examine my physical private property with nothing other than your word of honour that you aren't going to screw around with it, then you should be willing to accept my word of honour that I am not screwing around with your intellectual property.
And if you aren't willing to accept my word. then too bloody bad. Because my actual private property rights on the physical computer system TRUMP your speculative theory that it is illegal for me to buy 100 computers without buying 100 client licenses of microsoft windows. Obviously I'm using the computers for something OTHER than your software. Until such a time as the law says a person is required to buy quantities and ratios of software as decreed by microsoft, microsoft has no power to compell anyone to comply with such an audit. And threatening that a person will suffer some kind of negative consequence if they don't wave their rights to privacy is extortion, plain and simple.
"I bet this is big news to Americans: a government that can responsibly deter crime without infringing on the rights of the citizens. How did those darn Germans do it? Some sort of miraculous new technology? Maybe they've invented a porno-detector? Let's take a look!
only if the investigators meet certain conditions, including a concrete suspicion of illegal behavior and narrowly defined search criteria
--Sounds like a warrant."
Without judicial oversight this is not a warrant.
Moreover a warrant requires the judge to finally decide what the search cirteria are to be. In theory the judge is held to a higher standard and the evidence before a judge is part of the public record. Lastly a judge is required to be unbiased. Cops are not. Cops are always pro-prosecution.
"The database search was conducted by the credit-card companies, not the German police, which have no direct access to the financial records of people registered in Germany...They must have a concrete suspicion and provide very exact and limited search criteria.
--Sounds like responsible conduct."
delegating police investigations to the private sector is responsible conduct?
This is almost the very essence of irresponsible conduct. It may protect the financial company from intrusion. It certainly doesn't protect the public. It puts the public at more risk. At least the police are supposed to serve the public good. Private companies are supposed to serve their own good nothing else.
"Bizer warned that credit-card data monitoring could lead to mistrust, especially if customers aren't properly informed.
--Sounds like an understanding of government, law, and proper oversight.
--Amazing!"
Bizer didn't warn that the law required customers to be informed. It merely suggested that they ought to be.. presumably at the discretion of private parties.
Where exactly do you see OVERSIGHT in this? Do you think the corporate sector should be overseeing the police?
There is no oversight. the police suspect whoever they want and then a private company hands over the data.. great oversight.
being a corrupt german cop has never been this good.
Amazing indeed.
I said: You attach too much significance to "rights". They are legal fictions.
your reply:
"Not in the U.S. Our Founding Fathers recognized that men were born with "natural rights". The Bill of Rights does not give us these rights, it merely recognizes them and basically says the government can't mess with them."
I'd be convinced if I considered the founding fathers to hold some kind of monopoly on truth and if I considered the Bill of Rights to be a philosophical memorandum rather than what it is : LEGISLATION.
A legal fiction is a legal fact that is true for the purposes of a court of law, without any regard to any truth in the real world.
The fact that "legally" there all men are created equal and imbued in inalienable right, does not in fact cause all men to be equal nor cause them to be imbued with anything.. or even to be CREATED for that matter. It is a paper document which directs the courts to PRETEND that it is true.
It is NOT reality, and what the founding fathers said is only relevant to what LEGALLY you can do to animals.. it says nothing about what you can MORALLY do to animals.
And yes.. the government infringes the bill of rights frequently. And the courts have allowed it to. (so has God apparently).
I said: Does man ever have a chance to put God on trial?
you replied: Every single day. A common example of this is a crisis of faith.
If that was a trial God would rotting in some prison cell with no possibility of parol for eternity.
According the Catholic faith and most god-of-abraham style religions you have no jurisdiction to question God. And to question God is a crime punishable by anything from excommunication, stoning, burning, or exile. According to Christian dogma you have a choice of FAITH for which you will be rewarded or disbelief for which you will burn in eternal hellfire.
A trial is a matter of PROOF and not FAITH.
Here is another legal fiction for you. We fantasize when a person is convicted of a crime that this means he really did it. It is a legal fiction.
It means the judge/jury found that he very most likely did it.. that the evidence shows he did it beyond a reasonable doubt, but NOT beyond all doubt. There is a small chance he didn't do it. It is a FACT that a number of people (one hopes is small, but it would be at least about 1%, but some argue it is closer to 20%) who are convicted didn't actually do anything wrong and everyone in the legal profession KNOWS THIS. Guilt is a legal FICTION. Likewise.. then a person is aquited.. that doesn't mean they didn't actually do it.
The legal system operates on legal fictions.. it is there so that in the majority of cases people are deterred from screwing around too much and making sure society can basically operate without resorting to endless violence and anarchy. It isn't there to try to find the absolute truth at any cost. The absolute truth has nothing to do with law. And likewise.. rights are NOT absolute truthes.. they are also legal fictions.. created by man to make it easier to justify certain moral concepts which are generally speaking usually true.
For example: The right to life.... the right we ignore when we execute someone.
If the right was truly INALIENABLE then no government could EVER execute someone. Because no matter how hard you try, you can not seperate an INALIENABLE THING. i.e. even the worst mass murderer or serial killer still has the right to life. And yet the US government kills them. As well as traitors. Which is strange considering a traitor obviously does not agree with the state and therefore the state by the logic of the declaration of independance has no sovereignty over him.
Am I blowing your mind? and you thought the world was so black and white didn't you?
anyway the point is... rights are a simplification. they are not essential truths of the universe.. and if you manage to prove animals have no rights it really means nothing because you can also prove humans have
I always argue that the entire notion of rights is a gross simplification of morality. (Somewhat necessary in order to have a comprehensible legal system)
To that end.. "animal rights" is also a simplification of the deeper moral principles.
useful for getting your message across and attracting activists (most of whome are also somewhat too philosophically unskilled to see the deeper issues).
if saying "animal rights" serves those deeper moral issues then it is moral to call it animal rights, regardless whether or not animals rights are in fact what exist.
but it would help if more animal rights activists were aware of this so they aren't stumped by arguments based on the logic of 'rights'.
the limited ability of rights to serve as moral decision making tools is made more obvious when people talk about abortion. both sides try to argue on the basis of rights.. and get no where..
"If you take on premise that there is nothing innately special about human beings (no soul, special resemblance to God, etc.), then the difference between humans and other species (particularly other higher primates) becomes one of degree rather than kind. I think it's a basically unavoidable conclusion, once you take being "anointed by God" out of the equation."
Why should it be an unavoidable conclusion just because you take "anointed by God" out of the equation?
There is always something innately special about human beings: their resemblance to YOU.
"The non-hypocritical solutions, as I see it, are to either treat low-functioning homo sapiens as animals, or treat high-functioning animals (by which I mean certain species of marine mammals, chimpanzees, great apes; probably not really GSDs) as we would mentally-impaired humans."
You attach too much significance to "rights". They are legal fictions.
Does God give you the right to a fair trial? No. Does man ever have a chance to put God on trial? No.
So how do you get that somehow people have a right to a fair trial because man is annointed by God?
your little heirarchy suggests that a non-hypocritical solution would require us to treat smart people as having more rights than stupid people.
The strong, more rights than the weak, the tall more rights than the short. its all arbitrary (if you resort to rights). rights are not useful except to teach morality to simpletons. rights are just convenient rules of thumb to help us remember how to treat each other.
Just like when they say "driving is a priviledge and not a right"... its another legal fiction. Why isn't it a right? if private property is a right, freedom of travel is a right and you own a car, surely you have a right to drive it. They say you can push it but not drive it... on what basis?
rights don't tell us..
I sure as hell hope that dont expect the arbitrary rights we have dreamed up in the 20th century to be the full extent of moral reasons for anything the rest of time.