I Didn't Mean To Be There
December 8, 2008 5:39 AM Subscribe
Is it a crime under US law to merely visit a web site where there are images of child pornography?
Following a link on Metafilter, I linked to another site. On this site were images of adult pornography and I scanned through a series of pictures. About halfway through the slideshow I began to see the subjects were getting younger and younger. I thought to myself this almost looks like child pornography. I went to the next image and sure enough, it was. I got out of there ASAP. Under US law did I commit a crime just by being there. Could law enforcement monitor these sites and arrest me.
Following a link on Metafilter, I linked to another site. On this site were images of adult pornography and I scanned through a series of pictures. About halfway through the slideshow I began to see the subjects were getting younger and younger. I thought to myself this almost looks like child pornography. I went to the next image and sure enough, it was. I got out of there ASAP. Under US law did I commit a crime just by being there. Could law enforcement monitor these sites and arrest me.
If you are a return customer and have hard drives full of the stuff then ya I would say you are in trouble but for one visit, nah you are ok. Just delete your internet history and cookie cache if you want to put your mind at ease.
posted by Mastercheddaar at 5:55 AM on December 8, 2008
posted by Mastercheddaar at 5:55 AM on December 8, 2008
Most law enforcement efforts against kiddie porn seem to be, based on media coverage, targeted against traders, rather than viewers.
Well, that's how the press depicts the subjects anyway, largely based on what information the police provides at the time of the arrest. I seriously doubt that the cops will differentiate between "images saved to a hard drive" and "images in the browser cache" when it comes to building a case...or feeding the media. "On your computer" is "on your computer" as far as they are concerned. All it would take is an ignorant enough jury (i.e. one that doesn't grasp the idea of the browser cache vs. actually saving an image to your HD) and you could certainly be facing a trial and possibly conviction. Or, they could merely pressure you to register as a sex offender, utterly fucking-up the rest of your life. It depends on just how headline-hungry the local prosecutor is, I suppose.
posted by Thorzdad at 6:25 AM on December 8, 2008
Well, that's how the press depicts the subjects anyway, largely based on what information the police provides at the time of the arrest. I seriously doubt that the cops will differentiate between "images saved to a hard drive" and "images in the browser cache" when it comes to building a case...or feeding the media. "On your computer" is "on your computer" as far as they are concerned. All it would take is an ignorant enough jury (i.e. one that doesn't grasp the idea of the browser cache vs. actually saving an image to your HD) and you could certainly be facing a trial and possibly conviction. Or, they could merely pressure you to register as a sex offender, utterly fucking-up the rest of your life. It depends on just how headline-hungry the local prosecutor is, I suppose.
posted by Thorzdad at 6:25 AM on December 8, 2008
For the actual definition of 'Child Pornography', please visit the statue that defines the crime: 18 USC 2256.
This is an excerpt from that federal statute:
(8) “child pornography” means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where—
(A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
(B) such visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
(C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct.
In layman's terms....child pornography is NOT a picture of a naked child. Child pornography is an image of a prepubescent child engaged in sexually explicit conduct.
It is highly unlikely that you could be prosecuted for visiting a web site that contained one or two images. In my district, the United State's Attorney's Office generally prosecutes individuals who have 6 or more images. This is not a hard and fast number, as each situation is obviously unique and can involve many potentially mitigating factors.
(IANAL, but I do work with child pornography cases at the federal level in an investigative capacity. None of the above is meant as legal guidance and is only presented as my opinion.)
posted by LightMayo at 7:03 AM on December 8, 2008
This is an excerpt from that federal statute:
(8) “child pornography” means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where—
(A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
(B) such visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
(C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct.
In layman's terms....child pornography is NOT a picture of a naked child. Child pornography is an image of a prepubescent child engaged in sexually explicit conduct.
It is highly unlikely that you could be prosecuted for visiting a web site that contained one or two images. In my district, the United State's Attorney's Office generally prosecutes individuals who have 6 or more images. This is not a hard and fast number, as each situation is obviously unique and can involve many potentially mitigating factors.
(IANAL, but I do work with child pornography cases at the federal level in an investigative capacity. None of the above is meant as legal guidance and is only presented as my opinion.)
posted by LightMayo at 7:03 AM on December 8, 2008
(IANAL)
To add to LightMayo's comment, here's what the actual crime is:
(a) Any person who—
(1) knowingly mails, or transports or ships in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer, any child pornography;
(2) knowingly receives or distributes—
(A) any child pornography that has been mailed, or shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer; or
(B) any material that contains child pornography that has been mailed, or shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer;
So, to break this down for your case; technically, you did receive the kiddie porn. I think the key word here is "knowingly"; in my opinion, this refers to mens rea, or guilty mind. In other words, since you didn't intend to access those images, and didn't visit the site with intent to view kiddie porn, what you did is technically illegal. Whether or not you could/would be investigated/arrested/prosecuted/convicted is another story.
posted by specialagentwebb at 7:06 AM on December 8, 2008
To add to LightMayo's comment, here's what the actual crime is:
(a) Any person who—
(1) knowingly mails, or transports or ships in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer, any child pornography;
(2) knowingly receives or distributes—
(A) any child pornography that has been mailed, or shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer; or
(B) any material that contains child pornography that has been mailed, or shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer;
So, to break this down for your case; technically, you did receive the kiddie porn. I think the key word here is "knowingly"; in my opinion, this refers to mens rea, or guilty mind. In other words, since you didn't intend to access those images, and didn't visit the site with intent to view kiddie porn, what you did is technically illegal. Whether or not you could/would be investigated/arrested/prosecuted/convicted is another story.
posted by specialagentwebb at 7:06 AM on December 8, 2008
OK, how about reporting it? Call your local police station and tell them just what you told us. Your main concern should be for the welfare of the children depicted in the images, wouldn't you think?
posted by raisingsand at 7:27 AM on December 8, 2008
posted by raisingsand at 7:27 AM on December 8, 2008
In layman's terms....child pornography is NOT a picture of a naked child. Child pornography is an image of a prepubescent child engaged in sexually explicit conduct.
Not quite. The definition of sexually explicit conduct, given in § 2256 (2), includes "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person." (2)(B) adds, as relates to (8)(B), that sexually explicit conduct also includes, "graphic or simulated lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person."
So, yeah, pictures of a naked child on a pornography site would almost certainly constitute child pornography. It would be weird if it didn't.
Also, ikkyu2 has the right answer about what to do. Don't make a mountain out of a molehill. Do report the molehill to the exterminators.
posted by averyoldworld at 8:27 AM on December 8, 2008
Not quite. The definition of sexually explicit conduct, given in § 2256 (2), includes "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person." (2)(B) adds, as relates to (8)(B), that sexually explicit conduct also includes, "graphic or simulated lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person."
So, yeah, pictures of a naked child on a pornography site would almost certainly constitute child pornography. It would be weird if it didn't.
Also, ikkyu2 has the right answer about what to do. Don't make a mountain out of a molehill. Do report the molehill to the exterminators.
posted by averyoldworld at 8:27 AM on December 8, 2008
This thread is closed to new comments.
Most law enforcement efforts against kiddie porn seem to be, based on media coverage, targeted against traders, rather than viewers. If someone busts the server, and they keep logs, you'd show up, but with just a single visit, you probably wouldn't rate high on the suspect list.
posted by nomisxid at 5:46 AM on December 8, 2008