That is a completely baseless interpretation of the quote you've posted. It is not even alluded to in the quote and would be completely ridiculous in practice. Obviously both the production and possession of questionable but not undoubtedly illegal content is being judged based on the specific context.
Clearly you didn't actually read the quote, because if you did you would see I actually
did say that the intent of the pictures is important. Here:
Genitals don't need to be shown, what matters is the intention of the depictions, you overused prison fucktoy.
The intent of the pictures is to titillate, or cause arousal, a necessity in determining if something is considered child pornography. For example, a 15-year-old who has her breasts covered with her arm taking a selfie is clearly intending to cause arousal, and thus would be charged with possession of child porn in many instances (yes kids, if you're underage and take selfies showing your shit, the law allows for you to be charged with possession of child porn; if you send it to anyone else it becomes dissemination); however a family with a picture of their baby's bare ass in a kiddie pool one summer in the family album is not intending that, and thus doesn't have an issue with a possible child porn charge. So, whether these pictures are available or not, Andy says he has archived them. Also, during the stream he did he is ambiguous as to if he has the actual folder downloaded. He says he's edited some, he says someone else has edited some. When a folder is called up on the screen he shuts it down before thumbnails can load. It'll be up to an actual investigation to determine if they downloaded it.
On that note, if they did download any of it then there' a clear-cut case of possession of child porn. It doesn't matter if you lack the
mens rea when you commit the crime, what matters is you acted on it. For example, all but five states refuse to validate a claim of "I had no idea how old the girl was when I slept with her" defense, even if you picked the chick up in the bar and she turns out to be, say, 16. In those states, it
can be seen as a mitigating factor during sentencing, but just because you didn't intend to break laws concerning statutory rape and believed in good faith the person was over the age of consent doesn't absolve you of the crime (which in this case is stupid, I'll grant you). Likewise, if you fire a gun randomly and end up killing someone, you didn't have the intention of doing so but you did and you'll be charged with criminally-negligent homicide. In a situation like this, the intent may be seen as a mitigating factor but it won't absolve them of possession. This is why I said before: contact your local or state investigative body like the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Bundeskriminalamt, or Royal Canadian Mounted Police and point them to the stuff. Don't stream it and act like nothing will happen, because it can and will, especially when you've made it your life's work to piss people off on a daily basis, troll people, and antagonize random anons.
Finally, and this is why I told
@theralph to get a lawyer: probation can be revoked for the stupidest of things. For many, even failing a random piss test or breathalyzer is grounds for termination of the status. You need a good lawyer to get you off of it, and this is why I think Ralph should be worried about the cops talking to him: they're investigating it. It doesn't matter what they told him, he should be in full-on cover your ass mode.
