We have all seen news stories of people being prosecuted for possession of child pornography because service technicians have found child pornography on their hard drive. Usually it is a big news item and prosecutors want to lock them up and throw away the key. I know that what they have is illegal and they should be prosecuted for it. What dumbfounds me is that the purveyors of this filth seem to be imune to prosecution. Why are Internet Service Providers who make this available on their newsgroup servers not prosecuted for it? There is some really disgusting material on these servers and it would seem to me to be more effective to go after those who provide for the distribution of child pornography than to go after the sick individuals who download it. Why does it seem like they are imune from prosecution? There is a lot of horible stuff out on their servers and they cannot not be aware of it.
2007-09-24 16:21:56 · 4 answers · asked by DaveNCUSA 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I am aware of it because I have used newsgroups and seen some of the groups, not necessarily in passing.
2007-09-24 16:29:27 · update #1
Ignoring of course that some ISPs are not in the US so not subject to US laws....
The US ISPs are legally considered "common carriers".
"Common carriage" is an old legal principle, probably dating to at least the early days of the phone, but maybe even to the early days in the postal service in the 13 colonies.
The basic idea is that the transmitter/distributor must offer equal service and access to everyone, without censoring or questioning Thee content of what is being delivered. This is at Thee heart of several amendments in the Bill of Rights - especially, 1st, 3th, and 5th.
The principle applies to industries as diverse as communications, airlines, shipping, and so on.
There is little reason to think that any arbitrary could recognize what uis "legal" and what isn't, even if they wanted to. the matters of law you refer to are extremely diverse and nuanced, and very far from settled.
How would an ordinary ISP be expected to know what content was "legal" and what wasn't? They are not courts, and the computers through which information passes are not judges or juries or even government censors!
beyond all that, there is a technical reason too - the very architecture of the internet is such that the smarts are supposed to live at the destination or origin, and the other computers are to merely transport packets.
There is no reason to assume at all packets for a whole message, even the most vile photo, have passed through any ISP in its entirety, let alone in any order related to the final image as a whole.
And last but not least, it is almost trivial to encrypt the information or move it offshore. How do you think Chinese folks get information deemed as troublesome by their government as child porn is by ours? :)
For more on this, you might want to read up at chillingeffects.org, and anything having to do with Larry Lessig on line or in his books, and especially look for the so-called Network Neutrality issues.
2007-09-24 17:50:53 · answer #1 · answered by Barry C 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Which is the same reason they are not liable for "illegal" music downloads. It makes sense, why provide a service if you are held liable for what the consumer uses it for. It's like Hertz being liable for accidents that it's vehicles are in!
2007-09-24 16:30:18 · answer #2 · answered by edmonton6 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
ISP's have clauses in their service contract that the user alone is responsible for all posted content and hosted materials. That way if you do something illegal, its your fault and not theirs.
2007-09-24 16:25:22 · answer #3 · answered by Ian M 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
1. because they aren't in the US
and
2. some ISPs are only a connection and they aren't in control of what is contained on the servers.
2007-09-24 16:28:20 · answer #4 · answered by Drixnot 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋