Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

MachWun t1_itzvel9 wrote

Reply to comment by dudeedud4 in Young children exploited on OnlyFans, says US agent by charmbrood

There have been prior cases, where the person reporting the incident was then charged with possession even though they were doing the right thing by showing authorities

https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/library/tech/98/07/cyber/cyberlaw/10law.html

"In addition, the government argued that even if Matthews were a legitimate journalist working on a story, he had no more right under the First Amendment to receive and disseminate illegal images of minors than a reporter would have in buying crack cocaine in pursuit of a story about drugs"

Is the NY Times good enough?

−35

phunkydroid t1_iu02jed wrote

You don't have to have possession of anything to tell someone a username.

26

C1V t1_iu12yn0 wrote

Name me one. Name me one where the person who reported it was both charged and convicted.

9

MachWun t1_iu1nvli wrote

Ok, Here.

https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/library/tech/98/07/cyber/cyberlaw/10law.html

"In addition, the government argued that even if Matthews were a legitimate journalist working on a story, he had no more right under the First Amendment to receive and disseminate illegal images of minors than a reporter would have in buying crack cocaine in pursuit of a story about drugs"

2

perverse_panda t1_iu2l85q wrote

Not really a comparable example. This isn't a guy who spotted child porn on a website and then notified the authorities. This is a guy who was sending out pornographic images of children to other people. He was receiving and distributing.

I imagine it's the distributing part that got him arrested.

6

MachWun t1_iu17dlc wrote

Sorry not adding that to my search history. It's common enough you can find your own sources.

−19

Millenniauld t1_iu1jx21 wrote

Not adding "cases where reporting child porn caused the reporter to be arrested" to your search history? Lmao flimsiest excuse ever. Just admit you made it up because you didn't think you'd get called out. We all know.

10

MachWun t1_iu1nt08 wrote

Ok fine. Heres some case law of a NEWSPAPER REPORTER reporting on child pornography ONLINE and was subsequently charged for possession. Go fuck yourself.

https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/library/tech/98/07/cyber/cyberlaw/10law.html

"In addition, the government argued that even if Matthews were a legitimate journalist working on a story, he had no more right under the First Amendment to receive and disseminate illegal images of minors than a reporter would have in buying crack cocaine in pursuit of a story about drugs"

haha love the downvote after you got what you asked for

−6

C1V t1_iu35xs6 wrote

But he admitted he traded over 150 images to people online. That is a bit different than your idea you are trying to pass of "he only was doing research and report on it!!".

How about you take your own advice and go fuck yourself?

4