by Mike Masnick
Thu, Dec 10th 2009 1:25am
We were just talking about how current child porn laws that make you a criminal based on incidental possession alone can be quite problematic. Reader Jesse highlights an example of this. If you happen to have been in Toronto on Monday, and received a copy of Metro Toronto, a popular commuter paper, buried a few pages in was a "featured picture" of some kids celebrating at an annual parade by jumping around in a hot tub. The only problem? The male in the photo appears to be, well... having a wardrobe malfunction. Not unexpectedly, a bunch of sites were having some fun with this... until some realized that these were high school students. At that point, even Gawker -- who will post almost anything -- removed the photo realizing that under current laws, it was likely child pornography. Jesse points out that this would appear to make a bunch of people at the Metro, all the recipients of the paper on Monday, many people who visited blogs like Torontoist and Gawker while they had those photos displayed... potentially at risk for possessing child porn (and in the case of Metro employees and these blogs, for distributing it as well) -- making them all potential felons who could be required to sign up to be on sex offender lists for the rest of their lives. Isn't something wrong with the law when that happens?
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- NY Post Craps On NYC's Plan To Offer Free Wi-Fi -- Because The Homeless Might Watch Porn
- Lawmakers From The Great Theocracy Of Utah Looking To Block Porn On Cell Phones
- Dear Politicians: At Least Close Those Porn Tabs Before Sending Out Your Campaign Screenshots
- Google's Self-Driving Car Causes First Accident, As Programmers Try To Balance Human Simulacrum And Perfection
- Courts Pretty Much OK With FBI's Occasional Stints As Child Porn Distributors