Kazaa-Related CP Case; Conviction Upheld

There’s a lot of law behind this case. So much that it’d take hours to go through it all. In many instances innocent people will end up with images on their computer that they had no idea existed. Under the many state and federal law, one has to “knowingly” possess illegal images to be convicted of violating the child pornography laws.

The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the conviction of a Missouri man on a charge of publishing a “notice” offering to distribute child pornography through his use of the Kazaa file-sharing software, despite the defense’s claim that the ‘notice’ in question did not satisfy the definition of that term under the relevant statute.

Read the XBIZ story


  1. This case was very interesting in that both sides of the story were potentially pursuasive to jurors. But I am glad the verdict went for the prosecution. Shouldnt the “searchers” of the kazaa that downloaded the child pornography be prosecuted as well? They “knowingly” possess illegal images now that they have it downloaded. If nothing else, they should be prosecuted just for being “sickos”.

    Comment by Jenn Thornhill on January 31, 2008 at 10:29 pm

  2. Of course people that commit these kinds of crimes are going to try to justify it, with “well we didn’t really knowingly possess illegal images.” So what if you didn’t know it. Since when do you have to know you are doing something illegal for it to be a crime? If you are speeding down the highway at 110 miles an hour and the officer pulls you over, if you say you didn’t know you were going that fast, does that change the fact that you were breaking the speed limit? Unlikely….
    Child porongraphy is disgusting! I wouldn’t imagine any one who violates this law would own up to it and admit they were doing it!

    Comment by Tasia on February 6, 2008 at 5:41 pm

  3. At the conclusion of the article, Mr. Sewell’s attorney is going to appeal his client’s case to the United States Supreme Court. I am curious to see if the Supreme Court will even consider this case. In 2002, several of the Supreme Court justices struck down parts of the Child Pornography Protection Act because they were written so broadly. Based on this, I hate to say, but I believe that the Supreme Court have other cases on their docket that seem more pressing than Child Pornography.

    Comment by Wilson on February 12, 2008 at 11:22 am

Submit a comment: