On 3 Apr 2006, at 14:24, Steve Bennett wrote:
On 4/3/06, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
Jimbo is liable for 10 years imprisonment should he ever visit New Zealand.
<snip>
Domestic enforcement of child pornography laws is primarily conducted by Inspectors of the Department of Internal Affairs. They monitor New Zealanders trading child pornography online and in the real world. They have a near 100% conviction rate for child pornography offenders and enjoy excellent co-operative relationships with overseas law enforcement agencies. The New Zealand Customs Service prosecutes those who import child pornography."
Well, he's not a New Zealander. Our article is a bit vague on who else it applies to. I doubt that someone who had broken a New Zealand law overseas would be chargeable simply for visiting NZ. Or maybe you meant, if he visited NZ while the site was still hosted on his server...still iffy. And why is Jimbo the only culprit? Wouldn't the person who actually added it be at least as guilty?
He is distributing child pornography in New Zealand (not possessing it). Thats an offence whether you are in fact a Kiwi or not. The Wikimedia Foundation are the publishers and are probably liable (its hard to argue that Wp is a common carrier and hence only the contributor is liable).
IANAL, but I dont see that anyone really wants to try this one out.
Justinc