I'll start out by saying I am just asking out of curiosity and being nosy.
I found out a friend of a friend's ex boyfriend (and father of her children) is on the sex offender registry for child porn. He claims (and she believes him) that he accidentally clicked a spam link, realized what it was a closed out of it... he went to jail. I checked the registry for him and it says 'convicted of possessing, manufacturing, and distributing child pornography of a 14 year old girl'. Since it is only one girl would you be inclined to believe him- that it was an accident and that is just a blanket conviction, or would you believe that he did all three (possess, manufacture and distribute)?
About a year ago, a guy who used to work with DH was arrested for the same thing, and he also claimed it was just an accidental click. So, bad excuse or are people being arrested for clicking spam links?
Yea. I mean, I think they are both lying liars who lie, but I thought maybe I was being too harsh. But then again, all the spam I've ever seen has never included child pornography- so again, I think they are full of BS.
-- Edited by NAOW on Wednesday 23rd of December 2015 11:28:45 PM
They get caught for sending, not receiving from a click and then deleting.
"manufacturing, and distributing child pornography of a 14 year old girl'" means he had a camera and a live (probably willing) 14 y.o. girl. Then he sent out or sold the pictures / videos.
My vote is ...
bad excuse, but the only one they could come up with.
__________________
The Principle of Least Interest: He who cares least about a relationship, controls it.
Yea. I mean, I think they are both lying liars who lie, but I thought maybe I was being too harsh. But then again, all the spam I've ever seen has never included child pornography- so again, I think they are full of BS.
-- Edited by NAOW on Wednesday 23rd of December 2015 11:28:45 PM
One accidental click to a link does not "manufacture and distribute" make. I call shenanigans. I think that any lawyer worth their Bar Card should have been able to get those two parts tossed if they weren't true.
I'm not a Lawyer and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, so I could be wrong though.
One accidental click to a link does not "manufacture and distribute" make. I call shenanigans. I think that any lawyer worth their Bar Card should have been able to get those two parts tossed if they weren't true.
I'm not a Lawyer and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, so I could be wrong though.
One accidental click to a link does not "manufacture and distribute" make. I call shenanigans. I think that any lawyer worth their Bar Card should have been able to get those two parts tossed if they weren't true.
I'm not a Lawyer and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, so I could be wrong though.
I agree, but I didn't know if it's like a blanket conviction, if you are guilty of one you are charged with all three.. or something..
One accidental click to a link does not "manufacture and distribute" make. I call shenanigans. I think that any lawyer worth their Bar Card should have been able to get those two parts tossed if they weren't true.
I'm not a Lawyer and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, so I could be wrong though.
Yeah this. One accidental click could easily be explained away. Shoot, no jury in the world would convict on ONE link. How many of us have accidentally clicked on something. Most of us. Granted, not child porn but most of us have clicked on stuff accidentally. I agree that any lawyer worth weight could get a person off on just one link. I call BS on this one.
__________________
“You may shoot me with your words, you may cut me with your eyes, you may kill me with your hatefulness, but still, like air, I'll rise!” ― Maya Angelou
One accidental click to a link does not "manufacture and distribute" make. I call shenanigans. I think that any lawyer worth their Bar Card should have been able to get those two parts tossed if they weren't true.
I'm not a Lawyer and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, so I could be wrong though.
I agree, but I didn't know if it's like a blanket conviction, if you are guilty of one you are charged with all three.. or something..
Not a lawyer And it is different in each state, but usually NO, this is not a ONE SIZE FITS ALL charge. Becuase each charge is different. One can make and / or possess porn without distributing it. One can distribute porn without "possessing" it, ie watching it for gratification Or making it.
__________________
“One day, you will be old enough to start reading fairytales again.”
C.S.Lewis
Well, I am a lawyer and he's full of ****. He would not have been charged, let alone convicted for accidently clicking on a spam link. Police and prosecutors have much bigger fish to fry than pursuing "accidental spam" guppies.
__________________
LawyerLady
I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.
But I do think the "sex offender" blanket it too big.
__________________
A flock of flirting flamingos is pure, passionate, pink pandemonium-a frenetic flamingle-mangle-a discordant discotheque of delirious dancing, flamboyant feathers, and flamingo lingo.
Usually the pop up spam is related to the things you search. Look up a scarf and you will get lots of pop ups for scarves. So..... if he was getting porn pop ups, guess what?
Usually the pop up spam is related to the things you search. Look up a scarf and you will get lots of pop ups for scarves. So..... if he was getting porn pop ups, guess what?
Usually the pop up spam is related to the things you search. Look up a scarf and you will get lots of pop ups for scarves. So..... if he was getting porn pop ups, guess what?