Kevin Wayne Williams wrote:

> Kevin Gowen wrote:
> 
>> Kevin Wayne Williams wrote:
>>
>>> You think most kids go out and buy their own computers and set up 
>>> separate modem access to the home? Most of these juvenile 
>>> file-sharers are doing so with computers and modems supplied by the 
>>> parents. 
>>
>>
>>
>> Drawing on your legal education, tell me why this matters.
> 
> It satisfies one of the tests for aiding and abetting, in that it is 
> assistance in the commission of the crime. 

Yes, that is assistance.

Start studying for the MBE. Now.

> To satisfy the other test 
> (acting with knowledge of the criminal intent of the perpetrator and 
> with an intent or purpose of either committing, or of encouraging or 
> facilitating commission of the offense) requires demonstrating the 
> intent and knowledge the parent. 

Shit. I wish I would have known that in July. Which textbook did you 
copy that from?

> Demonstrating that can range from 
> impossible (the truly computer illiterate parent with no clue as to what 
> little Johnny was up to) to trivial (Kid:"Boy, Mom, this dial-up crap is 
> so slow, it takes me hours to download DVDs." Mom:"Well, then, it's time 
> get you DSL, so you can complete the family DVD library!").

It's going to be very hard since, as you note above, an accomplice must 
will that the crime be committed. Even if the parents know Johnny is 
committing crimes, they are not accomplices.

> Other cases would be grayer: buying the kid an upgrade to the computer 
> or a new computer after the parent had become aware of the criminal use 
> could be seen as being done with an intent to facilitate, especially if 
> the parent had used one of the downloads. A similar argument could be 
> made for every month's payment on the DSL line.

A similarly laughable argument. It's not nearly as gray as you would 
like it to be (or actually think it is?). It is asinine to hold parents 
liable as accessories simply because they provide their children with 
services or chattel that the child could use to commit a crime.

And if you are going to start talking about negligent entrustment, 
please don't.

>>> The lack of morals and disregard for property ownership probably 
>>> comes from the same source.
>>
>>
>>
>> I thought you atheists became all hands aflutter when people started 
>> talking about lack of morals. 
> 
> It's always irritating to listen to people argue that superstition is 
> the only basis for morality. This isn't a case of selling spark plugs on 
> Sunday: real entities suffer real financial harm.

What does the suffering of harm have to do with morals?

>> It's also very hard for me to listen to lectures on property ownership 
>> from a communist.
> 
> Still a strong advocate of property rights for corpses? 

That and the right of people to operate a private school.

> That's how you 
> get Kennedys, you know.

One of my questions for God when I die will be to ask why He took Jack 
and Bobby but left us with Teddy.

- Kevin