Ireland is about to pass one of the most radical hate speech bills yet. Merely
possessing "hateful" material on your devices is enough to face prison time.

Not only that, but the burden of proof is shifted to the accused, who will be
required to prove they didn't intend to use the material to "spread hate".
This clause is so radical that even the Leninist "People Before Profit"
opposed it as a flagrant violation of civil liberties.

Dark times.

------------------------------
Offence of preparing or possessing material likely to incite violence or
hatred against person on account of their protected characteristics

10. (1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3) and section 11, a person shall be
guilty of an offence under this section of the person--

(a) prepares or possesses material that is likely to incite violence or hatred
against person on account of their protected characteristics with a view to
the material being communicated to the public or a section of the public,
whether by himself or herself or another person, and

(b) prepares or possesses such material with intent to incite violence or
hatred against person on account of those characteristics or being reckless as
to whether such violence or hatred is thereby incited.

(2) In any proceedings for an offence under this section, it shall be a
defence to prove that the material concerned consisted solely of--

(a) a reasonable and genuine contribution to literary, artistic, political,
scientific, religious, or academic discourse,

(b) a statement that is the subject of the defence of absolute privilege, or

(c) material that is necessary for any other lawful purpose, including law
enforcement or the investigation or prosecution of an offence.

(3) In any proceedings for an offence under this section, where it is proved
that the accused person was in possession of material such as is referred to
in subsection (1) and it is reasonable to assume that the material was not
intended for the personal use of the person, the person shall be presumed,
until contrary is proved, to have been in possession of the material in
contravention of subsection (1).

(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable--

(a) on summary conviction, to a class C fine or imprisonment for a term not
exceeding 6 months or both, or

(b) on conviction on indictment, to a class A fine or imprisonment for a term
not exceeding 2 years or both.

On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 04:42:44 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

>Ireland is about to pass one of the most radical hate speech bills yet. Merely
>possessing "hateful" material on your devices is enough to face prison time.
>
>Not only that, but the burden of proof is shifted to the accused, who will be
>required to prove they didn't intend to use the material to "spread hate".
>This clause is so radical that even the Leninist "People Before Profit"
>opposed it as a flagrant violation of civil liberties.
>
>Dark times.

So if I, as a bad guy, decide to create some email suggesting that the
person I send it to was interested in some sort of hate group and
wanted to get the message out so they wanted appropriate material to
help sell the message to others. Then I set up some anonymous mail
program to send the message with the hateful material attached to
everyone in Ireland is that going to force everyone who has a run in
with the police to prove they didn't intend to spread the material.
Worse yet what I set up a trojan in the email that has them send out
an email to all of their contacts that looks like they wanted to
spread the hateful message.

Something like that is going to happen where innocent people are going
to end up in possession of hate group material. Then what happens to
them? How do they prove their innocence? Especially if their phone was
used to spread the material around. Yea, there's no way this law
against hateful material can go wrong.

>------------------------------
>Offence of preparing or possessing material likely to incite violence or
>hatred against person on account of their protected characteristics
>
>10. (1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3) and section 11, a person shall be
>guilty of an offence under this section of the person--
>
>(a) prepares or possesses material that is likely to incite violence or hatred
>against person on account of their protected characteristics with a view to
>the material being communicated to the public or a section of the public,
>whether by himself or herself or another person, and
>
>(b) prepares or possesses such material with intent to incite violence or
>hatred against person on account of those characteristics or being reckless as
>to whether such violence or hatred is thereby incited.
>
>(2) In any proceedings for an offence under this section, it shall be a
>defence to prove that the material concerned consisted solely of--
>
>(a) a reasonable and genuine contribution to literary, artistic, political,
>scientific, religious, or academic discourse,
>
>(b) a statement that is the subject of the defence of absolute privilege, or
>
>(c) material that is necessary for any other lawful purpose, including law
>enforcement or the investigation or prosecution of an offence.
>
>(3) In any proceedings for an offence under this section, where it is proved
>that the accused person was in possession of material such as is referred to
>in subsection (1) and it is reasonable to assume that the material was not
>intended for the personal use of the person, the person shall be presumed,
>until contrary is proved, to have been in possession of the material in
>contravention of subsection (1).
>
> (4) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable--
>
>(a) on summary conviction, to a class C fine or imprisonment for a term not
>exceeding 6 months or both, or
>
>(b) on conviction on indictment, to a class A fine or imprisonment for a term
>not exceeding 2 years or both.
>

On 4/29/23 11:42 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> Ireland is about to pass one of the most radical hate speech bills yet. Merely
> possessing "hateful" material on your devices is enough to face prison time.
>
> Not only that, but the burden of proof is shifted to the accused, who will be
> required to prove they didn't intend to use the material to "spread hate".
> This clause is so radical that even the Leninist "People Before Profit"
> opposed it as a flagrant violation of civil liberties.
>
> Dark times.
>
> ------------------------------
> Offence of preparing or possessing material likely to incite violence or
> hatred against person on account of their protected characteristics
>
> 10. (1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3) and section 11, a person shall be
> guilty of an offence under this section of the person--
>
> (a) prepares or possesses material that is likely to incite violence or hatred
> against person on account of their protected characteristics with a view to
> the material being communicated to the public or a section of the public,
> whether by himself or herself or another person, and
>
> (b) prepares or possesses such material with intent to incite violence or
> hatred against person on account of those characteristics or being reckless as
> to whether such violence or hatred is thereby incited.
>
> (2) In any proceedings for an offence under this section, it shall be a
> defence to prove that the material concerned consisted solely of--
>
> (a) a reasonable and genuine contribution to literary, artistic, political,
> scientific, religious, or academic discourse,
>
> (b) a statement that is the subject of the defence of absolute privilege, or
>
> (c) material that is necessary for any other lawful purpose, including law
> enforcement or the investigation or prosecution of an offence.
>
> (3) In any proceedings for an offence under this section, where it is proved
> that the accused person was in possession of material such as is referred to
> in subsection (1) and it is reasonable to assume that the material was not
> intended for the personal use of the person, the person shall be presumed,
> until contrary is proved, to have been in possession of the material in
> contravention of subsection (1).
>
> (4) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable--
>
> (a) on summary conviction, to a class C fine or imprisonment for a term not
> exceeding 6 months or both, or
>
> (b) on conviction on indictment, to a class A fine or imprisonment for a term
> not exceeding 2 years or both.

Sounds like bad new for the Oath Keepers trying to set up shop in
Ireland then.

shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 04:42:44 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> Ireland is about to pass one of the most radical hate speech bills yet. Merely
>> possessing "hateful" material on your devices is enough to face prison time.
>>
>> Not only that, but the burden of proof is shifted to the accused, who will be
>> required to prove they didn't intend to use the material to "spread hate".
>> This clause is so radical that even the Leninist "People Before Profit"
>> opposed it as a flagrant violation of civil liberties.
>>
>> Dark times.
>
> So if I, as a bad guy, decide to create some email suggesting that the
> person I send it to was interested in some sort of hate group and
> wanted to get the message out so they wanted appropriate material to
> help sell the message to others. Then I set up some anonymous mail
> program to send the message with the hateful material attached to
> everyone in Ireland is that going to force everyone who has a run in
> with the police to prove they didn't intend to spread the material.
> Worse yet what I set up a trojan in the email that has them send out
> an email to all of their contacts that looks like they wanted to
> spread the hateful message.
>
> Something like that is going to happen where innocent people are going
> to end up in possession of hate group material. Then what happens to
> them? How do they prove their innocence? Especially if their phone was
> used to spread the material around. Yea, there's no way this law
> against hateful material can go wrong.
>

I’m surprised nobody has done that yet with child porn.

>> ------------------------------

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 07:00:07 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
wrote:

>shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 04:42:44 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Ireland is about to pass one of the most radical hate speech bills yet. Merely
>>> possessing "hateful" material on your devices is enough to face prison time.
>>>
>>> Not only that, but the burden of proof is shifted to the accused, who will be
>>> required to prove they didn't intend to use the material to "spread hate".
>>> This clause is so radical that even the Leninist "People Before Profit"
>>> opposed it as a flagrant violation of civil liberties.
>>>
>>> Dark times.
>>
>> So if I, as a bad guy, decide to create some email suggesting that the
>> person I send it to was interested in some sort of hate group and
>> wanted to get the message out so they wanted appropriate material to
>> help sell the message to others. Then I set up some anonymous mail
>> program to send the message with the hateful material attached to
>> everyone in Ireland is that going to force everyone who has a run in
>> with the police to prove they didn't intend to spread the material.
>> Worse yet what I set up a trojan in the email that has them send out
>> an email to all of their contacts that looks like they wanted to
>> spread the hateful message.
>>
>> Something like that is going to happen where innocent people are going
>> to end up in possession of hate group material. Then what happens to
>> them? How do they prove their innocence? Especially if their phone was
>> used to spread the material around. Yea, there's no way this law
>> against hateful material can go wrong.
>>
>
>I’m surprised nobody has done that yet with child porn.

I was almost on a case where I wondered if something like that had
happened. I was in jury pool for a case where a guy had been found
with a few child porn pics in his deleted files. From what little we
heard from the defense there wasn't anything else on his computer so
there was no sign of him being into it other than the pics having been
on his computer. There was a medical emergency during the break before
they selected jury members so the case didn't go trial at that time
(and I don't know what happened later) and we were all sent home.

That said I know that I've had child porn on my computer before when
downloading things from Usenet that are mislabeled. So when I went to
look at it, it wasn't at all what I thought it was. In a world where
you are guilty until proven innocent I could have been in huge trouble
if people had known even though I didn't go look for it and deleted it
as soon as I saw it. That idea of having to prove your innocence is a
horrid approach unless the intent is just to make it easier to lock up
the people the government doesn't like.

On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 12:42:57 AM UTC-4, BTR1701 wrote:
> Ireland is about to pass one of the most radical hate speech bills yet. Merely
> possessing "hateful" material on your devices is enough to face prison time.
>
> Not only that, but the burden of proof is shifted to the accused, who will be
> required to prove they didn't intend to use the material to "spread hate"..
> This clause is so radical that even the Leninist "People Before Profit"
> opposed it as a flagrant violation of civil liberties.
>
> Dark times.
>
> ------------------------------
> Offence of preparing or possessing material likely to incite violence or
> hatred against person on account of their protected characteristics
>
> 10. (1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3) and section 11, a person shall be
> guilty of an offence under this section of the person--
>
> (a) prepares or possesses material that is likely to incite violence or hatred
> against person on account of their protected characteristics with a view to
> the material being communicated to the public or a section of the public,
> whether by himself or herself or another person, and
>
> (b) prepares or possesses such material with intent to incite violence or
> hatred against person on account of those characteristics or being reckless as
> to whether such violence or hatred is thereby incited.
>
> (2) In any proceedings for an offence under this section, it shall be a
> defence to prove that the material concerned consisted solely of--
>
> (a) a reasonable and genuine contribution to literary, artistic, political,
> scientific, religious, or academic discourse,
>
> (b) a statement that is the subject of the defence of absolute privilege, or
>
> (c) material that is necessary for any other lawful purpose, including law
> enforcement or the investigation or prosecution of an offence.
>
> (3) In any proceedings for an offence under this section, where it is proved
> that the accused person was in possession of material such as is referred to
> in subsection (1) and it is reasonable to assume that the material was not
> intended for the personal use of the person, the person shall be presumed,
> until contrary is proved, to have been in possession of the material in
> contravention of subsection (1).
>
> (4) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable--
>
> (a) on summary conviction, to a class C fine or imprisonment for a term not
> exceeding 6 months or both, or
>
> (b) on conviction on indictment, to a class A fine or imprisonment for a term
> not exceeding 2 years or both.

The current Prime Minister of Ireland is openly gay. I'm sure that's a complete coincidence, right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Varadkar

On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 12:42:57 AM UTC-4, BTR1701 wrote:
> Ireland is about to pass one of the most radical hate speech bills yet. Merely
> possessing "hateful" material on your devices is enough to face prison time.
>
> Not only that, but the burden of proof is shifted to the accused, who will be
> required to prove they didn't intend to use the material to "spread hate"..
> This clause is so radical that even the Leninist "People Before Profit"
> opposed it as a flagrant violation of civil liberties.
>
> Dark times.
>
> ------------------------------
> Offence of preparing or possessing material likely to incite violence or
> hatred against person on account of their protected characteristics
>
> 10. (1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3) and section 11, a person shall be
> guilty of an offence under this section of the person--
>
> (a) prepares or possesses material that is likely to incite violence or hatred
> against person on account of their protected characteristics with a view to
> the material being communicated to the public or a section of the public,
> whether by himself or herself or another person, and
>
> (b) prepares or possesses such material with intent to incite violence or
> hatred against person on account of those characteristics or being reckless as
> to whether such violence or hatred is thereby incited.
>
> (2) In any proceedings for an offence under this section, it shall be a
> defence to prove that the material concerned consisted solely of--
>
> (a) a reasonable and genuine contribution to literary, artistic, political,
> scientific, religious, or academic discourse,
>
> (b) a statement that is the subject of the defence of absolute privilege, or
>
> (c) material that is necessary for any other lawful purpose, including law
> enforcement or the investigation or prosecution of an offence.
>
> (3) In any proceedings for an offence under this section, where it is proved
> that the accused person was in possession of material such as is referred to
> in subsection (1) and it is reasonable to assume that the material was not
> intended for the personal use of the person, the person shall be presumed,
> until contrary is proved, to have been in possession of the material in
> contravention of subsection (1).
>
> (4) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable--
>
> (a) on summary conviction, to a class C fine or imprisonment for a term not
> exceeding 6 months or both, or
>
> (b) on conviction on indictment, to a class A fine or imprisonment for a term
> not exceeding 2 years or both.

It's been illegal to "misgender" someone in this country for 3 or 4 years now. Penalties on conviction can be up to 2 years in prison. Having said that, I have yet to hear of anyone being charged with misgendering, let alone being convicted, but maybe the media have simply not reported any such charges/convictions for fear of agitating people or alienating potential Liberal voters.

trotsky wrote:

> On 4/29/23 11:42 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > Ireland is about to pass one of the most radical hate speech bills
> > yet. Merely possessing "hateful" material on your devices is enough
> > to face prison time.
> >
> > Not only that, but the burden of proof is shifted to the accused,
> > who will be required to prove they didn't intend to use the
> > material to "spread hate". This clause is so radical that even the
> > Leninist "People Before Profit" opposed it as a flagrant violation
> > of civil liberties.
> >
> > Dark times.
>
> [SNIP]
>
> Sounds like bad new for the Oath Keepers trying to set up shop in
> Ireland then.

The Irish government is bending over backwards to out-liberal any other
country. Look at us over here, we are so right-on and trendy! But
trying to implement a law like this is only going to end in tears...
for someone. It's not workable.

Why is free speech and individual liberties so feared by governments?

I hope these idiots running the country get a kick up the arse in the
next election.

shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 07:00:07 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 04:42:44 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ireland is about to pass one of the most radical hate speech bills yet. Merely
>>>> possessing "hateful" material on your devices is enough to face prison time.
>>>>
>>>> Not only that, but the burden of proof is shifted to the accused, who will be
>>>> required to prove they didn't intend to use the material to "spread hate".
>>>> This clause is so radical that even the Leninist "People Before Profit"
>>>> opposed it as a flagrant violation of civil liberties.
>>>>
>>>> Dark times.
>>>
>>> So if I, as a bad guy, decide to create some email suggesting that the
>>> person I send it to was interested in some sort of hate group and
>>> wanted to get the message out so they wanted appropriate material to
>>> help sell the message to others. Then I set up some anonymous mail
>>> program to send the message with the hateful material attached to
>>> everyone in Ireland is that going to force everyone who has a run in
>>> with the police to prove they didn't intend to spread the material.
>>> Worse yet what I set up a trojan in the email that has them send out
>>> an email to all of their contacts that looks like they wanted to
>>> spread the hateful message.
>>>
>>> Something like that is going to happen where innocent people are going
>>> to end up in possession of hate group material. Then what happens to
>>> them? How do they prove their innocence? Especially if their phone was
>>> used to spread the material around. Yea, there's no way this law
>>> against hateful material can go wrong.
>>>
>>
>> I’m surprised nobody has done that yet with child porn.
>
> I was almost on a case where I wondered if something like that had
> happened. I was in jury pool for a case where a guy had been found
> with a few child porn pics in his deleted files. From what little we
> heard from the defense there wasn't anything else on his computer so
> there was no sign of him being into it other than the pics having been
> on his computer. There was a medical emergency during the break before
> they selected jury members so the case didn't go trial at that time
> (and I don't know what happened later) and we were all sent home.
>
> That said I know that I've had child porn on my computer before when
> downloading things from Usenet that are mislabeled. So when I went to
> look at it, it wasn't at all what I thought it was. In a world where
> you are guilty until proven innocent I could have been in huge trouble
> if people had known even though I didn't go look for it and deleted it
> as soon as I saw it. That idea of having to prove your innocence is a
> horrid approach unless the intent is just to make it easier to lock up
> the people the government doesn't like.
>

Also, I’ve accidentally or inadvertently gotten linked to a site that was
putting up all sorts of horrible stuff. I stop it back out and delete the
history, but still who knows what might be lurking in the bowels of my
devices.

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 07:00:07 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>>shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

>>>. . .

>>>Something like that is going to happen where innocent people are going
>>>to end up in possession of hate group material. Then what happens to
>>>them? How do they prove their innocence? Especially if their phone was
>>>used to spread the material around. Yea, there's no way this law
>>>against hateful material can go wrong.

>>I'm surprised nobody has done that yet with child porn.

>I was almost on a case where I wondered if something like that had
>happened. I was in jury pool for a case where a guy had been found
>with a few child porn pics in his deleted files. From what little we
>heard from the defense there wasn't anything else on his computer so
>there was no sign of him being into it other than the pics having been
>on his computer. There was a medical emergency during the break before
>they selected jury members so the case didn't go trial at that time
>(and I don't know what happened later) and we were all sent home.

>That said I know that I've had child porn on my computer before when
>downloading things from Usenet that are mislabeled. So when I went to
>look at it, it wasn't at all what I thought it was. In a world where
>you are guilty until proven innocent I could have been in huge trouble
>if people had known even though I didn't go look for it and deleted it
>as soon as I saw it. That idea of having to prove your innocence is a
>horrid approach unless the intent is just to make it easier to lock up
>the people the government doesn't like.

That's the trouble with the "possession of" criminal law standard,
because the prosecution has less of a burden to prove intent, and it's
much more difficult for the defense to make an affirmative defense that
he didn't intend to commit a crime. The way the Internet works, if the
user is using his local computer as host and not as a terminal, then
every file must be downloaded to be viewed. Users aren't always aware
that images and videos are downloaded as temporary files and displayed
with applications running on one's local computer, because that's how
things work. Even if one doesn't save the file locally, it's still there
in the temporary directory.

Even if the file is deleted, computer forensics can recreate any file
ever saved on disk (unless the user takes extraordinary measures to
delete the file in such a way that the sectors are overwritten to defeat
file recreation or physically destroys the disk) and, thanks to
"possession of", that's state's evidence.

"But once I saw what it was, I didn't want it and deleted it" isn't an
affirmative defense. The defendant was in possession of the contraband
electronic file in order to see what it was.

And shawn, usually one can tell the subject of the file was underage if
it's pre-pubescent. But there's no bright line method of telling whether
the teenage subject was under 18 or over 18, and sometimes, 20 year olds
might look much younger than 18. You weren't necessarily guilty! Good
luck proving it though.

And just looking at an image, how can the viewer possibly know that the
subject was possibly a victim of human trafficking?

My favorite thing was police and prosecutors feigning misunderstanding
of what the IPv4 address represents. It's just the address that faces the
wide area network. It doesn't prove which computer was the host and it
doesn't even prove that the Internet service subscriber was the one
interacting with the remote server with contraband images and videos
upon it. A neighbor or passerby could have used his network using his
own computer as host. Very few homeowners have any idea that Wifi is
insecure, or if they do, they have reason to be concerned about police
looking for evidence against them.

In article <8992a44c-4706-44b3-b73d-5ccc6476d436n@googlegroups.com>,
Rhino2 <hughmunguscan@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 12:42:57?AM UTC-4, BTR1701 wrote:

> > Ireland is about to pass one of the most radical hate speech bills yet.
> > Merely possessing "hateful" material on your devices is enough to face
> > prison time.
> >
> > Not only that, but the burden of proof is shifted to the accused, who
> > will be required to prove they didn't intend to use the material to
> > "spread hate". This clause is so radical that even the Leninist "People
> > Before Profit" opposed it as a flagrant violation of civil liberties.
> >
> > Dark times.

> It's been illegal to "misgender" someone in this country for 3 or 4 years
> now. Penalties on conviction can be up to 2 years in prison. Having said
> that, I have yet to hear of anyone being charged with misgendering, let alone
> being convicted, but maybe the media have simply not reported any such
> charges/convictions for fear of agitating people or alienating potential
> Liberal voters.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the moviePigs of the world
who don't appreciate the robust protection of free speech that we have
in America will rue the day.

On 4/30/2023 3:46 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <8992a44c-4706-44b3-b73d-5ccc6476d436n@googlegroups.com>,
> Rhino2 <hughmunguscan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 12:42:57?AM UTC-4, BTR1701 wrote:
>
>>> Ireland is about to pass one of the most radical hate speech bills yet.
>>> Merely possessing "hateful" material on your devices is enough to face
>>> prison time.
>>>
>>> Not only that, but the burden of proof is shifted to the accused, who
>>> will be required to prove they didn't intend to use the material to
>>> "spread hate". This clause is so radical that even the Leninist "People
>>> Before Profit" opposed it as a flagrant violation of civil liberties.
>>>
>>> Dark times.
>
>> It's been illegal to "misgender" someone in this country for 3 or 4 years
>> now. Penalties on conviction can be up to 2 years in prison. Having said
>> that, I have yet to hear of anyone being charged with misgendering, let alone
>> being convicted, but maybe the media have simply not reported any such
>> charges/convictions for fear of agitating people or alienating potential
>> Liberal voters.
>
> I've said it before and I'll say it again, the moviePigs of the world
> who don't appreciate the robust protection of free speech that we have
> in America will rue the day.

Whereas, the *actual* moviePig worries about the BTRs of the world, who
can't see the difference between 'free speech' and a Molotov cocktail.

On 04/30/2023 12:07 PM, shawn wrote:
> That idea of having to prove your innocence is a horrid approach unless the intent is just to make it easier to lock up
> the people the government doesn't like.

Many laws are *deliberately* vaguely worded in order to get easy
convictions, actual guilt is unimportant.

For example about nine years ago (2014) there was a case in Edmonton,
Alberta where a woman went crazy while she was riding a subway and then
she started attacking people.

A rider had to defend himself and later he was hit with a $500. fine for
fighting.

'Possessed' woman attacks fellow passenger:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbhpqEtLWtU

On 4/30/23 2:46 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <8992a44c-4706-44b3-b73d-5ccc6476d436n@googlegroups.com>,
> Rhino2 <hughmunguscan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 12:42:57?AM UTC-4, BTR1701 wrote:
>
>>> Ireland is about to pass one of the most radical hate speech bills yet.
>>> Merely possessing "hateful" material on your devices is enough to face
>>> prison time.
>>>
>>> Not only that, but the burden of proof is shifted to the accused, who
>>> will be required to prove they didn't intend to use the material to
>>> "spread hate". This clause is so radical that even the Leninist "People
>>> Before Profit" opposed it as a flagrant violation of civil liberties.
>>>
>>> Dark times.
>
>> It's been illegal to "misgender" someone in this country for 3 or 4 years
>> now. Penalties on conviction can be up to 2 years in prison. Having said
>> that, I have yet to hear of anyone being charged with misgendering, let alone
>> being convicted, but maybe the media have simply not reported any such
>> charges/convictions for fear of agitating people or alienating potential
>> Liberal voters.
>
> I've said it before and I'll say it again, the moviePigs of the world
> who don't appreciate the robust protection of free speech that we have
> in America will rue the day.

Well Oath Keeper'd.

On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 11:07:13 -0400, shawn
<nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

>That said I know that I've had child porn on my computer before when
>downloading things from Usenet that are mislabeled. So when I went to
>look at it, it wasn't at all what I thought it was. In a world where
>you are guilty until proven innocent I could have been in huge trouble
>if people had known even though I didn't go look for it and deleted it
>as soon as I saw it. That idea of having to prove your innocence is a
>horrid approach unless the intent is just to make it easier to lock up
>the people the government doesn't like.

I've been in the same boat (mislabelled images being that kind of
crap) and having large drives (I collect e-books and magazines) one
never knows what might still be looking in my deleted files even
though I'm pretty sure I >didn't< merely 'delete to recycle bin' on
that kaka.

Realistically if you download 'GoldenGateBridge.jpg' you would expect
it to be the bridge in SF right?

On Tue, 02 May 2023 23:30:52 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

>On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 11:07:13 -0400, shawn
><nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>
>>That said I know that I've had child porn on my computer before when
>>downloading things from Usenet that are mislabeled. So when I went to
>>look at it, it wasn't at all what I thought it was. In a world where
>>you are guilty until proven innocent I could have been in huge trouble
>>if people had known even though I didn't go look for it and deleted it
>>as soon as I saw it. That idea of having to prove your innocence is a
>>horrid approach unless the intent is just to make it easier to lock up
>>the people the government doesn't like.
>
>I've been in the same boat (mislabelled images being that kind of
>crap) and having large drives (I collect e-books and magazines) one
>never knows what might still be looking in my deleted files even
>though I'm pretty sure I >didn't< merely 'delete to recycle bin' on
>that kaka.
>
>Realistically if you download 'GoldenGateBridge.jpg' you would expect
>it to be the bridge in SF right?

You would. I think one of the ones that caught me was mixed in with a
number of images of trains. Though I suppose I did see some true
underage porn in terms of the works of Traci Lords or at least I
assume some of the stuff I saw years ago was done when she was
underage but pretending to be older.

In article <knv35id4r3dacd78fab2pu1nnl0uca1mo7@4ax.com>, The Horny Goat
<lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

> On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 11:07:13 -0400, shawn
> <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>
> >That said I know that I've had child porn on my computer before when
> >downloading things from Usenet that are mislabeled. So when I went to
> >look at it, it wasn't at all what I thought it was. In a world where
> >you are guilty until proven innocent I could have been in huge trouble
> >if people had known even though I didn't go look for it and deleted it
> >as soon as I saw it. That idea of having to prove your innocence is a
> >horrid approach unless the intent is just to make it easier to lock up
> >the people the government doesn't like.
>
> I've been in the same boat (mislabelled images being that kind of
> crap) and having large drives (I collect e-books and magazines) one
> never knows what might still be looking in my deleted files even
> though I'm pretty sure I >didn't< merely 'delete to recycle bin' on
> that kaka.
>
> Realistically if you download 'GoldenGateBridge.jpg' you would expect
> it to be the bridge in SF right?

Goat, we're not talking about some user who unintentionally downloads
the photo of a child that's been salted somewhere on purpose, maybe
even as a prank. Unfortunately, that kind of thing happens. The
people we're talking about possess thousands of images, perhaps many
thousands. Cops know how and where to look for this stuff. Nobody's
going to come after you or me or anybody else for a single file.

A Friend wrote:
>The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>Sun, 30 Apr 2023 11:07:13 -0400, shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>:

>>>That said I know that I've had child porn on my computer before when
>>>downloading things from Usenet that are mislabeled. So when I went to
>>>look at it, it wasn't at all what I thought it was. In a world where
>>>you are guilty until proven innocent I could have been in huge trouble
>>>if people had known even though I didn't go look for it and deleted it
>>>as soon as I saw it. That idea of having to prove your innocence is a
>>>horrid approach unless the intent is just to make it easier to lock up
>>>the people the government doesn't like.

>>I've been in the same boat (mislabelled images being that kind of
>>crap) and having large drives (I collect e-books and magazines) one
>>never knows what might still be looking in my deleted files even
>>though I'm pretty sure I >didn't< merely 'delete to recycle bin' on
>>that kaka.

>>Realistically if you download 'GoldenGateBridge.jpg' you would expect
>>it to be the bridge in SF right?

>Goat, we're not talking about some user who unintentionally downloads
>the photo of a child that's been salted somewhere on purpose, maybe
>even as a prank. Unfortunately, that kind of thing happens. The
>people we're talking about possess thousands of images, perhaps many
>thousands. Cops know how and where to look for this stuff. Nobody's
>going to come after you or me or anybody else for a single file.

You say this but you well know it's not true. Prosecutors demand very
broad laws quite capable of sweeping up substantial numbers of people
for no benefit to society whatsoever because they want the flexibility
to prosecute "the worst of the worst" despite lacking evidence of the
serious underlying crimes they believe they are actually guilty of.

But there are absolutely people prosecuted who should have benefitted
from prosecutorial discretion because their crimes were meaningless and,
in the interest of justice, never should have been treated as crimes in
the first place.

Of course a solid citizen could get caught up in something like this.
Never assume a prosecutor to be benign with this kind of power.

On Wed, 03 May 2023 06:03:36 -0400, A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:

>In article <knv35id4r3dacd78fab2pu1nnl0uca1mo7@4ax.com>, The Horny Goat
><lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 11:07:13 -0400, shawn
>> <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>
>> >That said I know that I've had child porn on my computer before when
>> >downloading things from Usenet that are mislabeled. So when I went to
>> >look at it, it wasn't at all what I thought it was. In a world where
>> >you are guilty until proven innocent I could have been in huge trouble
>> >if people had known even though I didn't go look for it and deleted it
>> >as soon as I saw it. That idea of having to prove your innocence is a
>> >horrid approach unless the intent is just to make it easier to lock up
>> >the people the government doesn't like.
>>
>> I've been in the same boat (mislabelled images being that kind of
>> crap) and having large drives (I collect e-books and magazines) one
>> never knows what might still be looking in my deleted files even
>> though I'm pretty sure I >didn't< merely 'delete to recycle bin' on
>> that kaka.
>>
>> Realistically if you download 'GoldenGateBridge.jpg' you would expect
>> it to be the bridge in SF right?
>
>
>Goat, we're not talking about some user who unintentionally downloads
>the photo of a child that's been salted somewhere on purpose, maybe
>even as a prank. Unfortunately, that kind of thing happens. The
>people we're talking about possess thousands of images, perhaps many
>thousands. Cops know how and where to look for this stuff. Nobody's
>going to come after you or me or anybody else for a single file.

In the case that I brought up the guy suspected of having child porn
only had two or three pictures. So don't tell me that they are only
going after people who have thousands of pictures.

On Wed, 3 May 2023 16:00:34 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>Of course a solid citizen could get caught up in something like this.
>Never assume a prosecutor to be benign with this kind of power.

Unfortunately I do agree with you rather than A Friend.

By all means nail the bad guys but as you say it's easy for somebody
to drop a bad one from you since you don't normally see samples ahead
of time and even if so those can end up in cache too.

It's the nature of the technology rather than evil doing.

In article <u2u0f2$1be54$1@dont-email.me>, Adam H. Kerman
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

> A Friend wrote:
> >The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
> >>Sun, 30 Apr 2023 11:07:13 -0400, shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>:
>
> >>>That said I know that I've had child porn on my computer before when
> >>>downloading things from Usenet that are mislabeled. So when I went to
> >>>look at it, it wasn't at all what I thought it was. In a world where
> >>>you are guilty until proven innocent I could have been in huge trouble
> >>>if people had known even though I didn't go look for it and deleted it
> >>>as soon as I saw it. That idea of having to prove your innocence is a
> >>>horrid approach unless the intent is just to make it easier to lock up
> >>>the people the government doesn't like.
>
> >>I've been in the same boat (mislabelled images being that kind of
> >>crap) and having large drives (I collect e-books and magazines) one
> >>never knows what might still be looking in my deleted files even
> >>though I'm pretty sure I >didn't< merely 'delete to recycle bin' on
> >>that kaka.
>
> >>Realistically if you download 'GoldenGateBridge.jpg' you would expect
> >>it to be the bridge in SF right?
>
> >Goat, we're not talking about some user who unintentionally downloads
> >the photo of a child that's been salted somewhere on purpose, maybe
> >even as a prank. Unfortunately, that kind of thing happens. The
> >people we're talking about possess thousands of images, perhaps many
> >thousands. Cops know how and where to look for this stuff. Nobody's
> >going to come after you or me or anybody else for a single file.
>
> You say this but you well know it's not true.

In other words, I'm lying on purpose. I'm ten seconds away from saying
fuck this place.

In article <1g455i5t4meb567sjve5k2qhbii62ckrjj@4ax.com>, shawn
<nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 03 May 2023 06:03:36 -0400, A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <knv35id4r3dacd78fab2pu1nnl0uca1mo7@4ax.com>, The Horny Goat
> ><lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 11:07:13 -0400, shawn
> >> <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >That said I know that I've had child porn on my computer before when
> >> >downloading things from Usenet that are mislabeled. So when I went to
> >> >look at it, it wasn't at all what I thought it was. In a world where
> >> >you are guilty until proven innocent I could have been in huge trouble
> >> >if people had known even though I didn't go look for it and deleted it
> >> >as soon as I saw it. That idea of having to prove your innocence is a
> >> >horrid approach unless the intent is just to make it easier to lock up
> >> >the people the government doesn't like.
> >>
> >> I've been in the same boat (mislabelled images being that kind of
> >> crap) and having large drives (I collect e-books and magazines) one
> >> never knows what might still be looking in my deleted files even
> >> though I'm pretty sure I >didn't< merely 'delete to recycle bin' on
> >> that kaka.
> >>
> >> Realistically if you download 'GoldenGateBridge.jpg' you would expect
> >> it to be the bridge in SF right?
> >
> >
> >Goat, we're not talking about some user who unintentionally downloads
> >the photo of a child that's been salted somewhere on purpose, maybe
> >even as a prank. Unfortunately, that kind of thing happens. The
> >people we're talking about possess thousands of images, perhaps many
> >thousands. Cops know how and where to look for this stuff. Nobody's
> >going to come after you or me or anybody else for a single file.
>
> In the case that I brought up the guy suspected of having child porn
> only had two or three pictures. So don't tell me that they are only
> going after people who have thousands of pictures.

Fine, if that's what makes you happy.

A Friend wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>A Friend wrote:
>>>The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>>>Sun, 30 Apr 2023 11:07:13 -0400, shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>:

>>>>>That said I know that I've had child porn on my computer before when
>>>>>downloading things from Usenet that are mislabeled. So when I went to
>>>>>look at it, it wasn't at all what I thought it was. In a world where
>>>>>you are guilty until proven innocent I could have been in huge trouble
>>>>>if people had known even though I didn't go look for it and deleted it
>>>>>as soon as I saw it. That idea of having to prove your innocence is a
>>>>>horrid approach unless the intent is just to make it easier to lock up
>>>>>the people the government doesn't like.

>>>>I've been in the same boat (mislabelled images being that kind of
>>>>crap) and having large drives (I collect e-books and magazines) one
>>>>never knows what might still be looking in my deleted files even
>>>>though I'm pretty sure I >didn't< merely 'delete to recycle bin' on
>>>>that kaka.

>>>>Realistically if you download 'GoldenGateBridge.jpg' you would expect
>>>>it to be the bridge in SF right?

>>>Goat, we're not talking about some user who unintentionally downloads
>>>the photo of a child that's been salted somewhere on purpose, maybe
>>>even as a prank. Unfortunately, that kind of thing happens. The
>>>people we're talking about possess thousands of images, perhaps many
>>>thousands. Cops know how and where to look for this stuff. Nobody's
>>>going to come after you or me or anybody else for a single file.

>>You say this but you well know it's not true.

>In other words, I'm lying on purpose. I'm ten seconds away from saying
>fuck this place.

I didn't call you a liar. I've never called you a liar on Usenet. I'm
saying that we've had plenty of discussions over the years with regard
to abuse of prosecutorial discretion in this very newsgroup, several of
which in recent weeks. Hell, it's a well-used plot of tv episodes of
various procedurals, which is what typically leads to these discussions.

shawn had the same reaction I did and he's never been anything but nice
to everyone.

I would have liked you to have acknowledged the very real possibility
that there is such a thing as prosecutorial overreach and abuse of
discretion and that all sorts of people over the years who really didn't
deserve it have found themselves defending against unjust but lawful
criminal charges.

You can get pissed at me. Everybody does at some point or another. But I
didn't and never have called you a liar.

On Wed, 03 May 2023 17:37:30 -0400, A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:

>In article <1g455i5t4meb567sjve5k2qhbii62ckrjj@4ax.com>, shawn
><nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 03 May 2023 06:03:36 -0400, A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <knv35id4r3dacd78fab2pu1nnl0uca1mo7@4ax.com>, The Horny Goat
>> ><lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 11:07:13 -0400, shawn
>> >> <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >That said I know that I've had child porn on my computer before when
>> >> >downloading things from Usenet that are mislabeled. So when I went to
>> >> >look at it, it wasn't at all what I thought it was. In a world where
>> >> >you are guilty until proven innocent I could have been in huge trouble
>> >> >if people had known even though I didn't go look for it and deleted it
>> >> >as soon as I saw it. That idea of having to prove your innocence is a
>> >> >horrid approach unless the intent is just to make it easier to lock up
>> >> >the people the government doesn't like.
>> >>
>> >> I've been in the same boat (mislabelled images being that kind of
>> >> crap) and having large drives (I collect e-books and magazines) one
>> >> never knows what might still be looking in my deleted files even
>> >> though I'm pretty sure I >didn't< merely 'delete to recycle bin' on
>> >> that kaka.
>> >>
>> >> Realistically if you download 'GoldenGateBridge.jpg' you would expect
>> >> it to be the bridge in SF right?
>> >
>> >
>> >Goat, we're not talking about some user who unintentionally downloads
>> >the photo of a child that's been salted somewhere on purpose, maybe
>> >even as a prank. Unfortunately, that kind of thing happens. The
>> >people we're talking about possess thousands of images, perhaps many
>> >thousands. Cops know how and where to look for this stuff. Nobody's
>> >going to come after you or me or anybody else for a single file.
>>
>> In the case that I brought up the guy suspected of having child porn
>> only had two or three pictures. So don't tell me that they are only
>> going after people who have thousands of pictures.
>
>
>Fine, if that's what makes you happy.

I don't get that response. Do you think that what I describe doesn't
happen? While we didn't get into all of the details of the case
because this was done as part of the jury selection process to see if
we could fairly judge the case, there was enough presented to show
that this guy wasn't someone with a large collection of child porn.

My only point was that it does happen that prosecutors go after people
with only a few images. Perhaps they are doing it for other reasons
(such as believing the person guilty of other crimes but not having
the evidence to enable prosecution.) I'm sure the majority of cases
are like you suggest people with large caches of child porn, or who
are actively engaging in the trading of such pictures/videos. Those
are the cases that will make the news.

On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 6:01:18 PM UTC-4, shawn wrote:
> On Wed, 03 May 2023 17:37:30 -0400, A Friend <no...@noway.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <1g455i5t4meb567sj...@4ax.com>, shawn
> ><nanof...@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 03 May 2023 06:03:36 -0400, A Friend <no...@noway.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <knv35id4r3dacd78f...@4ax.com>, The Horny Goat
> >> ><lcr...@home.ca> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 11:07:13 -0400, shawn
> >> >> <nanof...@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >That said I know that I've had child porn on my computer before when
> >> >> >downloading things from Usenet that are mislabeled. So when I went to
> >> >> >look at it, it wasn't at all what I thought it was. In a world where
> >> >> >you are guilty until proven innocent I could have been in huge trouble
> >> >> >if people had known even though I didn't go look for it and deleted it
> >> >> >as soon as I saw it. That idea of having to prove your innocence is a
> >> >> >horrid approach unless the intent is just to make it easier to lock up
> >> >> >the people the government doesn't like.
> >> >>
> >> >> I've been in the same boat (mislabelled images being that kind of
> >> >> crap) and having large drives (I collect e-books and magazines) one
> >> >> never knows what might still be looking in my deleted files even
> >> >> though I'm pretty sure I >didn't< merely 'delete to recycle bin' on
> >> >> that kaka.
> >> >>
> >> >> Realistically if you download 'GoldenGateBridge.jpg' you would expect
> >> >> it to be the bridge in SF right?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Goat, we're not talking about some user who unintentionally downloads
> >> >the photo of a child that's been salted somewhere on purpose, maybe
> >> >even as a prank. Unfortunately, that kind of thing happens. The
> >> >people we're talking about possess thousands of images, perhaps many
> >> >thousands. Cops know how and where to look for this stuff. Nobody's
> >> >going to come after you or me or anybody else for a single file.
> >>
> >> In the case that I brought up the guy suspected of having child porn
> >> only had two or three pictures. So don't tell me that they are only
> >> going after people who have thousands of pictures.
> >
> >
> >Fine, if that's what makes you happy.
> I don't get that response. Do you think that what I describe doesn't
> happen? While we didn't get into all of the details of the case
> because this was done as part of the jury selection process to see if
> we could fairly judge the case, there was enough presented to show
> that this guy wasn't someone with a large collection of child porn.
>
> My only point was that it does happen that prosecutors go after people
> with only a few images. Perhaps they are doing it for other reasons
> (such as believing the person guilty of other crimes but not having
> the evidence to enable prosecution.) I'm sure the majority of cases
> are like you suggest people with large caches of child porn, or who
> are actively engaging in the trading of such pictures/videos. Those
> are the cases that will make the news.

Pete Townshend - yes, THAT Pete Townshend - was arrested for viewing child porn online in 2003 by the British police. He was put on the sex offenders registry for five years as a result. I suspect that if he'd been an average bloke rather than a rich man with the ability to hire top lawyers, things would have gone much worse for him.