I mean, who hasn't accidentally downloaded CSAM when searching for "sunsets and beaches", right?
this post was submitted on 11 Jun 2025
128 points (97.1% liked)
Not The Onion
16688 readers
1302 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
The person pled guilty to distributing it too. The children were as young as 9.
Despite pleading guilty to the charges, Keenan maintained that he is not sexually attracted to children, and had only stumbled upon the child pornography in 2017 while “searching for other images such as sunsets and beaches,” according to the decision.
He stumbled upon them in 2017 while searching for other innocuous images and just decided to save them and not delete them for 8 years. Seems like completely normal, well-adjusted behavior.
Actually reading the link, he was arrested in 2018. It's not very exculpatory to say "His CSAM collection wasn't eight years old, it was only one year old," but it's true I guess.
Keep reading, he started a blog with them to "attract and report pedos"
I did read it. The Tumblr blog is what was reported to police, leading to his arrest in 2018, roughly a year after the offending began. The original commenter was under the mistaken impression that his offenses went undetected until 2025, or roughly eight years. I corrected a misunderstanding about years.
This may in fact not be completely outside of the realm of possibility for someone who has no idea how to actually operate his computer, which is most people. The notion that things can be deleted, not to mention when they should be deleted or when they should not be deleted, and the fact that on most modern systems they aren't actually deleted when you hit "delete" and instead go to some manner of purgatory elsewhere on your drive where they're still accessible in full (recycle bin/trash) regularly eludes the majority of computer users.
The problem is, the defendant's excuse could be explained by him being a moron from multiple avenues, so we'll never know if he's inept (as in can't delete files) or inept (as in so stupid he things everyone else is as stupid as he is in order to believe his dumb excuse).
“relatively modest” size of his collection, a judge has ruled.
Compared too?
It really reads like a pedo giving out a sick burn to another pedo.....your collection isn't even big enough to earn jail time. What is this amateur hour?
Investigate that judge. Also, dude needs to be kept away from children.
A “relatively modest” collection of child porn is zero. This alone should be grounds to seize and search all of the judges devices.
Somebody check the judge's hard drive.
"Judge not convinced by flimsy excuse" doesn't really strike me as worthy of the Onion.
The defendants story makes up for it
Got another “Dear Zachary” brewing up north!
WTF?