• klay@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    If I were him I’d stand by that defense. It’s a carefully worded and sane defense. He’s not defending child abuse, he’s saying, extremely clearly and plainly, that possession of evidence is not the same as committing abuse, and that the law shouldn’t use possession as a scapegoat. Which, given that every attempt to censor the internet in the last 10 years has started with “protect the children”, I’d say he was trying to cut that tactic off at the head.

    • BruceDoh@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Disagree. The entire post is predicated on the false assertion that data is just a collection of arbitrary bits.

      • Hello Hotel@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Its not a binary, wether “X” should be legal is based on the intent of the prosicutors and procicuted. Here, both are dubious going on the tiny amount of info i have