[zimpenfish]

> a senior police officer in the UK

To be fair, this is partially because the laws in the UK are, I think, fairly bonkers strict about CSAM - mere possession, whether you've looked at it or not, whether you downloaded it or not, whether you even know it's there or not, etc., is counted as criminal.

[quietbritishjim]

As I mentioned in the last paragraph, it seems that she would've been cleared if she'd been able to convince the jury that she didn't know it was there. And would've been clear even if she had seen it so long as she'd reported it (although that would of course have got her own sister in trouble even though she was acting in good faith).

[zionic]

The US is the same.

[wutbrodo]

I believe this is incorrect.

> At the same time, because of the First Amendment, child pornography offenses are not "strict liability" crimes like statutory rape: in order to convict a defendant, the government must prove that the defendant knew the material involved the actual abuse of a child

https://www.zmolaw.com/child-pornography-faqs#

I've found similar claims on the websites of a few law offices. For some reason, the official DoJ materials are pretty cagey on the topic.

[Zak]

> "strict liability" crimes like statutory rape

That varies by jurisdiction. Some US states require criminal negligence or offer affirmative defenses with regard to the defendant's belief as to the victim's age.