What happens if giant sentient minor squids arise from the ocean floor and begin posting on the SDMB?
Fresh fried calamari for everyone!
We can all hope they’re of the age of majority.
Lets keep in mind, we’re talking about giant minor sentient Canadian internet using squids here.
Actually, sentient may be optional as well.
The laws have always been way too strict, because we consider this type of crime so bad. Nobody should get in trouble for crimes they couldn’t know they were committing. But it seems like the courts don’t want to have to try to prove what the accused knew or should reasonable be expected to have known (like they would for almost every other crime), because they are too worried that some people might get away. They are assuming the person is de facto presumed guilty until proven innocent, if not de juro.
Even with the system as is, it really seems odd that you can’t create a similar disclaimer as the site itself. Why can’t we say, for example
But, no, we can’t, just like lawyers can’t have someone sign a contract saying they realize that all conversations are for entertainment purposes only and do not establish an attorney-client relationship. Just like a sign on a cave that says that people who enter the cave do so at their own risk does not absolve the state from rescuing them.
We live in a nanny state, and there are a lot of people that want to make it even worse.
I can see where some might think this tends towards “thought crime.” The decision wrestles with the concept of intent to perform actions that may lead to an actual crime, but don’t necessarily. I think, though, that it is also necessary to examine two things: (a), the Criminal Code (CC) provision that was involved in the issue (CC s. 172.1(1)©); and (b), the facts that gave rise to the whole thing.
The CC section is limited to those offenses it specifies; and the facts are so extreme (compared to what typically happens on the SDMB) that even if a 13-year-old was able to gain an SDMB membership, I’d guess that the mods/admins would do something before things went that far. Note also that some of the activities Legare engaged in took place away from the chat room, beyond the reach of any online mod/admin. Regardless, the CC section and the facts are quite specific and supported–they haven’t been invented or embellished. I think this is important to remember, as I was starting to forget this on my first pass through the decision.
Similarly, it is important to note that the Court wrestled with the concept of intent; but after much discussion, the Court states (at para. 42), “What matters, I repeat, is whether the evidence as a whole establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused communicated by computer with an underage victim for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a specified secondary offence with respect to that victim.” (Emphasis in the original.) Notice that there are now four elements that must be made out for this specific crime, and everything must be supported by the evidence as a whole.
I don’t see that there is “thought crime” here. What I do see is an attempt by the Court to remove as much subjectivity as possible from the matter. Actions must be measured against the specifics of the CC, examined within the context of the determination process laid down by this and other Courts, and tested against the elements determined by this Court. I think Gfactor’s advice is good–avoid chatting with under-14s–but I think that the policies and nature of the SDMB, as well as the work of the admins/mods, will keep the SDMB safe from any Legare-type problems.
Since squid only live about a year, all squid are ineligible.
Does the law affect the SDMB? No.
Does the law affect SDMB posters? Only Canadians or people in Canada who are luring/grooming youth on the SDMB.
No need to dump the youth.
Want to help protect SDMB youth posters from the pervs? Dump the sickos.
(Bonus points: which mod innocently flirted with a young poster, not realizing the age of the poster?)
For proper analysis, what Spoons says.
Ah, yes. Giraffe’s 18" prehensile tongue and the 13-year-old Hot Buttered Toast. That was some entertaining reading!
There’s no such thing as a “convicted pedophile”. Being a pedophile isn’t a crime. Not even given this new legislation out of Canada.
No its not a crime, but people who relish this unhealthy obsession are the majority of the ones who eventually act on it and commit said crimes. You could say a “convicted pedophile” is just one who commits a sexual crime against a child and is convicted for said crime. Its a very fitting term unless you perhaps have something more appropriate?
I’d reccomend “child molester” if that’s the term you’re looking for (though I suspect from context, the OP means nothing of the sort).
Also:
The original question has been asked and very well answered. Our thanks to everyone who made this difficult subject more understandable.
This thread is not going to be used as a battleground for other topics.
Finally, I remind everyone of the registration agreement where it says:
**The board is not intended to furnish you with a forum for promoting your personal agenda. **