united-states european-union social-media child-porn
What legal protections are there for moderators of social media who view child pornography when it is referred to them?
<p>Suppose you are a moderator of a social media website such as Reddit, or something in the Stack Exchange network, or similar.</p>
<p>Users can report inappropriate, abusive, or illegal content. For example, child pornography. As a moderator, you receive such a report and view the indecent images. Are you then breaking the law?</p>
<p>What legal provisions are there to protect the moderators of social media websites who triage such content?</p>

<p><a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Section 230</a> (of Title 47) grants immunity from civil liability under certain circumstances, so the website is not liable to the porn-distributor for taking down their images. There are also criminal laws pertaining to child porn, such as <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2252" rel="nofollow noreferrer">18 USC 2252</a>. It is not a crime to &quot;see&quot; child porn. Instead, the crime is defined with reference to one who</p>
<blockquote>
<p>knowingly receives, or distributes, any visual depiction...</p>
</blockquote>
<p>of child porn. Therefore you cannot be prosecuted if you do not <em>know</em> that the image is has the prohibited characteristics (is child porn). See <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/513/64/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">US v. X-Citement Video</a>, 513 U.S. 64 for discussion of th scienter requirement. The surrounding circumstances (the report) at most indicate that the moderator has some reason to believe that it is porn, and the immediate deletion of the material supports the conclusion that the moderator's action complies with the law.</p>
<p>Paragraph (c) of that law also provides a defense, in case of prosecution:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>It shall be an affirmative defense to a charge of violating paragraph
(4) of subsection (a) that the defendant— (1) possessed less than
three matters containing any visual depiction proscribed by that
paragraph; and (2) promptly and in good faith, and without retaining
or allowing any person, other than a law enforcement agency, to access
any visual depiction or copy thereof— (A) took reasonable steps to
destroy each such visual depiction; or (B) reported the matter to a
law enforcement agency and afforded that agency access to each such
visual depiction.</p>
</blockquote>

<p><a href="/questions/tagged/canada" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;canada&#39;" aria-label="show questions tagged &#39;canada&#39;" rel="tag" aria-labelledby="canada-container">canada</a></p>
<p>Possession of illegal materials for the sole purpose of delivering them to authorities or destroying them is not considered to be an offence.</p>
<p>The same is true for e.g. a student finds a bag of illegal drugs or firearms and turn it to their teacher, who then turns the material to authorities. Neither the student nor the teacher is guilty of offences such as possession of controlled substances or posession of firearms without licence.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Criminal possession requires knowledge of the criminal character of the item in issue, and a measure of control over that item. Control refers to power or authority over the item, whether exercised or not. There are cases where an individual has the requisite knowledge and control, but cannot be said to be in possession for the purpose of importing criminal liability. These cases will include cases in which a person takes control of contraband exclusively for the purpose of immediately destroying it or otherwise placing it permanently beyond the person's ability to exercise any control over it. <strong>In such cases, the intention is solely to divest oneself of control rather than to possess.</strong></p>
<p><em>R. v. Chalk</em>, 2007 ONCA 815 (CanLII), <a href="https://canlii.ca/t/1txps" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://canlii.ca/t/1txps</a>, retrieved on 2022-12-13</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It is up to the Crown to prove that the accused has the knowledge and control required for criminal possession, which may follow from circumstantial evidences.</p>
