Man Arrested For Child Porn, Blames Google For Making It Too Easy To Find

from the well-there's-a-defense dept

It's amazing how little anyone is willing to accept blame these days. They always find someone else to blame for their actions. For an extreme example, a guy in the UK arrested for having more than 16,000 child porn photos is using the unique defense that it's all Google's fault for making it so easy to access the photos. His lawyer noted: "He feels that he would not have committed these offences if this information was not so freely available. He feels if companies like Google did not provide access to such sites, he would not have committed the offences." It's tough to see the court buying that kind of argument.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. identicon
    Twinrova, 21 May 2008 @ 9:25am

    Re: Re: Google not at fault?

    "How can you be sure that you aren't filtering anti-pedophile sites, for example, that offer help and advice to victims?"
    What website helping others would ever place themselves in a category for image searching regarding child pornography?

    Show me one.

    I want to clarify, because I think the point was overlooked: What circumstance would any search engine allow an IMAGE search on "child pornography".


    Text, I agree, is an entirely different ballgame and trying to do anything here is a waste of time.

    The guy has some merit if his searches were done via image searching. Text is an entirely different aspect because it doesn't list images, but sites to them, meaning one extra step needs to be taken (and blame away from the search engine).

    But there is NO extra step needed for image searches. They're displayed.

    Try this:
    Open Google and type "Kaley Cuoco" in the web search.
    Lots of sites and a couple of images on the results.

    Now do the same under the images search.

    Understand now? I can say that a search for "pedophilia" under the web search isn't going to yield you pictures of a nude 8 year old girl having sex with an adult but who the hell knows what you'd get under the images search.

    I'm not that damn stupid to try it.

    "Completely false analogy."
    The analogy was used simply to show that looking at something from one point of view isn't necessarily the correct one.

    Given the replies to this blog, I'm attesting the "common view" that Google isn't partially liable isn't the correct one.

    I've yet to see any logical replies on why a search engine would yield *IMAGE* results of child pornography (or any variation thereof).

    Hell, a damn caution message with the results would be better than NOTHING.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: I Invented Email
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.