Canada Supreme Court Broadens Internet "Luring" Offense 596
An anonymous reader points out this report that a Canadian Supreme Court has broadened its interpretation of an existing law designed to punish adults who attempt to meet children online for criminal purposes; under the court's interpretation, says the article, that would now "include anyone having an inappropriate conversation with a child — even if the chats aren't sexual in nature and the accused never intended to meet the alleged victim." The story quotes Mark Hecht, of the organization Beyond Borders, thus: "If you're an adult and if you're having conversations with a child on the Internet, be warned because even if your conversations aren't sexual and even if your conversations are not for the purpose of meeting a child and committing an offence against a child, what you're doing is potentially a crime."
Re:So... (Score:3, Informative)
I'm sure the actual law has some more rigorous definitions (not necessarily any less ridiculous mind you) of what a conversation consists of.
Now what I'm wondering is, how can I know what age someone I'm talking to is?
Do they have to announce their age before I have to stop talking to them, or am I supposed to find other means?
Bearing in mind that just about any way of finding out someone's age would probably be a bit suspicious: asking for photo, asking for a webcam session, asking for a voice chat, or even just asking them their age in text.
I ask this because I know a lot of kids that sound more mature than a majority of the 'adults' I chat to online, although a few things give them away.
Re:What? (Score:5, Informative)
It is in Canada evidently....
Although it also is in the US, UK, AUS, and a fair few other places thanks to insanely broad anti-terrorism laws. If you talk to a "terrorist" even if you don't know they're a terrorist and have no intention of conducting terrorism you can be breaking the law.
But then again owning a standard middle school science book is also technically illegal depending on how you read the anti-terrorism act(s). So really it is just a thought crime. If they associate you with it they will nab you for it with or without evidence.
It is the same in this case... They want to make paedophilia a thought crime and thus if you are associated with it by anyone then you are breaking a law...
Re:So Wait... (Score:4, Informative)
3. Eligibility.
You represent that you are an adult in your country of residence. You agree to these Terms of Use on behalf of yourself and, at your discretion, for one (1) minor child for whom you are a parent or guardian and whom you have authorized to use the account you create on the Service.
http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/legal/termsofuse.html [worldofwarcraft.com]
So, you are wrong. You can talk to children on WoW.
Re:But... (Score:2, Informative)
I call BS (Score:5, Informative)
Bullshit. Mistake of Fact is a defense in a criminal case. It has to be reasonable. Meeting a girl in a restricted-access adult club, it is reasonable to assume that she is of-age. It's not iron-clad, it's an imperfect defense; if she acts younger, raises doubt, etc, prosecution can certainly raise those issues. But it becomes a question for the jury, rather than the set-in-stone determination you would have us believe. Mistake of Law, on the other hand, is very very rarely a defense. You pretty much have to have a personal letter from the attorney general telling you what he thinks the law is, you follow his advice, and he be wrong, before mistake of Law is a defense.
Secondly, I question the case you talk about in Georgia, since the age of consent there is 16. Are you referring to the tragic case of the 17 year old boy who had (supposedly consensual) sex with a 14 year old girl at a party and ended up receiving 10 years in jail for a felony statutory rape charge? It's tragic and stupid, but not as cut and dry as you mentioned. It and similar cases also elicited a change in the law, because it was so stupid. It's now a misdemeanor in Georgia.
Yes, I AM an attorney. And posting anonymously because I am reading slashdot at work....
Re:Take the full step (Score:4, Informative)
Re:So... (Score:2, Informative)
This is a country that includes text as potential child pornography. If sexual activity is depicted and includes an under-age character, that can lead to a child pornography charge.
So my guess is "yes".
Re:Heh (Score:3, Informative)
Re:So... (Score:2, Informative)
I suppose he might have been joking -- or he might just be an adult who's seen what today's troubled teenagers do when they're on the internet. (As a foster parent, I've been down that road myself, and trust me: sometimes you just don't want to know!)
Of course, even if he is joking, there is always a kernal of truth in humor... that's why it's funny in the first place.
Re:Double jeopardy (Score:5, Informative)
In the US, if you are found not guilty during the original trial the verdict cannot be appealed.
Re:It probably won't protect more children (Score:5, Informative)
I read the ruling. There is an actual offence which was committed. It is against the law (a law passed by parliament) to communicate with a child under 14 (at the time this offence took place the law said 14) for the purposes of facilitating a secondary crime such as abduction or a sex crime or a child porn crime.
The accused admits to have had sexual conversations with the child who had represented herself as 13 (she was 12). The accused admits that he stated a desire to have oral sex with the girl. He denies any desire to actually meet the girl or to actually have sex with her or to actually abduct her or to actually get dirty pictures of her or whatever.
The trial court ruled that since he didn't want to meet her he wasn't facilitating a crime.
The supreme court ruled that "facilitating" means, among other things, "making easier" or "making possible" or "making more possible" the acts in question. So there is a question about whether or not he "facilitated" under the terms of the law.
Thus the accused will receive a new trial.
So there WAS a law and it sounds like he did break it. This is not a new law. This is a clarification of the wording of the old law. The sticky point seems to be that facilitating merely involves gaining the trust of a child, so any talk which gains the trust of a child could be facilitating. However it would require a strong burden of evidence to prove that such talk was for facilitating the crime.
Re:Shun strange children. (Score:3, Informative)
One day I wouldn't have thought twice about it. I'm only 18, and as such a little younger than the stereotypical pedo, but I tried to help a lost, sobbing 5-year-old on the subway once and almost got arrested. God forbid I was 15 years older - I'd have gone to prison.
No worries. there's actually a pretty good chance you would commit suicide before the trial was over.