Quote:
Originally Posted by TarJak
His point is irrelevant in this case as the operations in this instance were not carried out by a law enforcement agency of any government. Therefore it falls into civil suit jurisdiction, where the burden of proof is quite different in different jurisdictions to that applied to law enforcement agencies.
If any of the accused choose to stick their necks out they might have a crack at a libel suit. Only if a law enforcement agency decided to proceed with prosecution in the USA would his point be marginally valid. And that would be entirely dependant on how the individual investigations were handled. Is the tip off to police polluted by the way in which the names were collected? What could be argued is that the information received added to information already on hand in an investigation or if this information js even used as part of any prosecution cases subsequently brought before the courts. A smart prosecutor would simply omit any references to the Dutch charities activities, collect their own evidence and put the basums where they belong.
|
That's what I get for just skim-reading the story in question.
I didn't realise it was a Dutch charity firm. A morally tricky situation, and since there was no actual underaged human being involved, I'm not actually certain what the law would be. This 'Sweetie' was not actually operated by a ten year old Filipino girl, so technically no law has been broken...quite amazing really that we have reached the time period already where a virtual avatar is mistaken for a real life person.
Some new laws are going to have to be written in the near future I think, especially if and when we reach the technological singularity, or at least a level in which AI programs are able to act and react in a human-like manner.
Of course, that's not really on the subject of this thread, but it's still an interesting subject.