Nathan (gemsling) wrote,
Nathan
gemsling

Regarding article "Teen's website hijacked by pedophiles"

URL: http://www.news.com.au/common/printpage/0,6093,11634648,00.html
Headline: Teen's website hijacked by pedophiles

A 19 year old with a web hosting business ended up in court because people had used his service to store/distribute child pornography. He wasn't involved directly, and didn't advertise for porn pedlars.

"However he was charged on the basis he had done nothing to stop the child pornographers using the site to sell or swap their products."

What does this mean?! Sorry, let me rephrase. My gripe is that the article doesn't explain whether he was aware of the child pornography or not. I can only assume that he was, in which case the $3000 fine and forfiet of his equipment may be warranted. But if he wasn't aware of it, then the law has screwed up.
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 5 comments