SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
On Monday, a US federal appeals court sided against a former Philadelphia police officer who has been in jail 17 months because he invoked his Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination. He had refused to comply with a court order commanding him to unlock two hard drives the authorities say contain child porn.
The 3-0 decision (PDF) by the 3rd US Circuit Court of Appeals means that the suspect, Francis Rawls, likely will remain jailed indefinitely or until the order (PDF) finding him in contempt of court is lifted or overturned. However, he still can comply with the order and unlock two FileVault encrypted drives connected to his Apple Mac Pro. Using a warrant, authorities seized those drives from his residence in 2015. While Rawls could get out from under the contempt order by unlocking those drives, doing so might expose him to other legal troubles.
In deciding against Rawls, the court of appeals found that the constitutional rights against being compelled to testify against oneself were not being breached. That's because the appeals court, like the police, agreed that the presence of child porn on his drives was a "foregone conclusion." The Fifth Amendment, at its most basic level, protects suspects from being forced to disclose incriminating evidence. In this instance, however, the authorities said they already know there's child porn on the drives, so Rawls' constitutional rights aren't compromised.
[...] The suspect's attorney, Federal Public Defender Keith Donoghue, was disappointed by the ruling.
"The fact remains that the government has not brought charges," Donoghue said in a telephone interview. "Our client has now been in custody for almost 18 months based on his assertion of his Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination."
-- submitted from IRC
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday March 22 2017, @08:34PM (1 child)
What about the problems associated with the production of the child porn? Exploitation. All sorts of questions.
Where are the models coming from?
Can they give consent?
Do they have parents?
Are they doing this of their own free will?
Do they even have any understanding of what they are doing?
The reason possession of this pr0n is illegal is because somebody had to produce it. A secondary concern is that those who view this may very well be more likely to rape or molest people. People viewing normal pr0n can probably still get dates. People viewing gay pr0n can probably get dates. People viewing this material probably cannot legally engage in any such activity. But like others who view pr0n, they probably will, at some point, engage in it.
While I may have a degree of sympathy for someone with this particular attraction, I certainly don't want them around my kid.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @11:07AM
>What about the problems associated with the production of the child porn? Exploitation. All sorts of questions.
Solution: The man keeps female child as a bride of his for life. Dt 22, verse 28-verse 29, hebrew
>Where are the models coming from?
Immaterial (Dt 22, verse 28-verse 29, hebrew)
>Can they give consent?
Immaterial (Dt 22, verse 28-verse 29, hebrew)
>Do they have parents?
Only relevant for payment to the father (Dt 22, verse 28-verse 29, hebrew)
>Are they doing this of their own free will?
Immaterial (Dt 22, verse 28-verse 29, hebrew)
>Do they even have any understanding of what they are doing?
Immaterial (Dt 22, verse 28-verse 29, hebrew)
Females were made for man, not man for the female.
Men should have child brides.
These men are being persecuted for their love of girls rather than women, not for making pictures.