Blind man sued for downloading porn

vbimport

#1

Blind man sued for downloading porn.

[newsimage]http://static.rankone.nl/images_posts/2011/08/YbPTYn.jpg[/newsimage]If you think that headline is just a crack about lawyers, think again. One man, who's part of an aggressive case claiming he and over 3,500 other unnamed defendants illegally downloaded pornographic content, has a unique argument as to why he couldn't possibly be guilty: he can't see.


Read the full article here: [http://www.myce.com/news/blind-man-sued-for-downloading-porn-49915/](http://www.myce.com/news/blind-man-sued-for-downloading-porn-49915/)


Please note that the reactions from the complete site will be synched below.

#2

I was working 18-hour days so I just told my wife to go to Best Buy and pick up a router. She installed it, hit next, next, finish, and boom, that was it. We lived in a very upscale building, there was no riffraff. We just assumed we didn’t have anything to worry about,” he said.
Understandable, but stupid. People should read manuals some times.

Ironically, Doe #2,057 works in network security.
Hopefully not in wireless network security…


#3

I agree that the guy is not entirely innocent since he failed to secure his network. He should negotiate a settlement and learn his lesson. I don’t think that ignorance is a defense.


#4

IF anyone here truely believes that someone running their network unsecured makes them less than
inocent, please don’t make legal distinctions.

Oh and plead guilty to being the legal idiot if I accuse you of being one:)

It’s the legal equivelent of leaving your house unlocked and having someone sneak in and making crank calls to the police on your phone.

OR getting car-jacked is “your fault” because you didn’t lock your car doors.

IT still isn’t your fault.

Foolish yes, but not liable in criminal or civil court.

Securing your wireless avoids interacting with some obnoxious lawyer.
(though I believe “obnoxious” & “Lawer” in the same sentance is redundant)

AD


#5

With any luck, he’ll get a Judge that actually has more than 2 functioning grey cells.
Upon seeing the defendant, the Judge will immediately order the Prosecuting Attourney and his sideshow, tossed firmly out onto the street, prefferably into traffic.


#6

Oh no, I see it coming. Now besides having owners manual in all languages they will have to provide a braille manual as well.


#7

[QUOTE=AllanDeGroot;2599714]It’s the legal equivelent of leaving your house unlocked and having someone sneak in and making crank calls to the police on your phone.[/quote] Perhaps. That is what makes this a issue for lawyers. There are countless examples on both sides why or why not someone is guilty of having their posessions abused.

If you have a loaded gun on your dining table and someone with access to the house uses it to kill people, you can be partial liable, since owning a gun has certain legal obligations regarding safekeeping. (The “this would not have happened if you were following standard regulations”)

If you have the same gun inside a very good safe and someone somehow stole your safe, broke it open somehwere else, found the gun and then started killing people with it, you are almost certainly not liable. (The “you could not have foreseen this and did follow standard regulations”)

The trouble is with electronic equipment it’s pretty difficult for some people to understand what common practice and standard regulations are. If all systems came pre-protected this would happen a lot less.


#8

The guy’s blind as a bat, and the porn industry is going to sue him??

Ridiculous!!