Are you being purposefully obtuse? Did you even read the reports or the statute? Djam admits to showing it to other players. That's a violation of the statute. I'm not a lawyer, but I don't have much faith that the "not a very good statute" defense is a winning strategy. My question to you (and to Truth Seeker [sic] and RolGnav before you) is, since a crime was committed, was there a victim? If so, who?
After you're done contemplating and answering that, let's move on the statutes 617.246 and 617.247, namely "USE OF MINORS IN SEXUAL PERFORMANCE PROHIBITED" and "POSSESSION OF PORNOGRAPHIC WORK INVOLVING MINORS", respectively. Both of which Djam is seemingly guilty of violating. Any victims there?
You're not smart enough to post here. Don't comment on the law if you don't actually know how to research it or interpret it. Here is how you interpret and cite law that you would submit to court:
“A person who disseminates pornographic work to an adult or a minor, knowing or with reason to know its content and character, is guilty of a felony.” Minn. Stat. § 617.247, subd. 3(a). However, dissemination of a pornographic work under the statute “is not a strict liability offense. Rather, the state must prove that a defendant knew he was disseminating child pornography.” State v. McCauley, 820 N.W.2d 577, 587 (Minn. Ct. App. 2012). The mental requirement “’know’ requires only that the actor believes that the specified fact exists.” Minn. Stat. § 609.02, subd. 9(2).
“Dissemination” is not defined by statute, so its usage is “construed according to rules of grammar and according to their common and approved usage.” Minn. Stat. § 645.08(1). In approved usage by a dictionary “dissemination” means “Scatter in different directions, as in sowing seed; spread, disperse, diffuse, promulgate, (opinions, knowledge etc.).” Shorter Oxford English Dictionary 715 (6th Edition 2007).
A “pornographic work” is a work that shows, uses, or involves a minor. “Minn. Stat. § 617.246, subd. 1(f).
Dissemination of a pornographic work consists of three elements. They are:
1. The defendant knowingly disseminated a pornographic work to an adult or minor.
2. The pornographic work involved a minor.
3. The defendant knew or had reason to know that the content of the work was pornographic work involving the use of a minor.
All Djam has to prove is that he didn't specifically know that the recruit was 17. That's not hard to do. I doubt he asked his age, and the recruit is a senior, which is when most people turn 18. That dispels element 3, and then he is not guilty.
Now go way, and don't pretend to be a lawyer.
