Date: Fri, 6 Oct 95 15:00:13 EDT
From: djones@insight.dcss.McMaster.CA (David Jones)
To: efc-talk@insight.dcss.McMaster.CA
Subject: BC BBS Seizure - Week 30 - September 27, 1995
X-Efc-Web-Site: http://insight.mcmaster.ca/org/efc
X-Efc-Archive: gopher://insight.mcmaster.ca/11/org/efc

BC BBS Seizure - Week 30 - September 27, 1995

On August 30, six months after the seizure of two BBS's from the homes
of two families in Surrey, BC, charges were finally laid.  Each couple
stands charged with about 15-20 counts under s.163 (obscenity) and
s.163.1 (child porn).  The material in question is a mixture of
pictures and text files found on the seized computers.

During the previous six months, with little apparent progress being made
by the prosecution, the defendants in this case had become somewhat "cocky".
The Vancouver newspapers were even reporting that the BC Attorney General
seemed reluctant to lay any charges.  It thus came as quite an emotional
shock to be told they were possibly facing serious jail time.  Add to this
the difficulty one couple seems to be having with obtaining Legal Aid.
Add to this that it was suggested to the couples that they make arrangements
for the care of their children while they are in jail.

After initial indications they wanted to proceed by indictment
(possibly 2-5 years in jail), the prosecution seems instead to
be planning to proceed by summary conviction (fine up to $2,000;
up to 6 months in jail).

Although it seems possible that these couples might have a good chance
against the child porn charges (by arguing the child porn law is
constitionally defective) and a good chance against the obscenity charges
(by arguing that BBS files depicting adults consensually participating
in "alternative" activities does *not* cause harm to society or
violate community standards), the couples have a difficult decision to make.

[A later correspondent notes that the choice of which sort of prosecution 
to push for is the prosecution's, not the defendants', choice. - mech@eff.org]

*What if* the following plea bargain is offered:
   If both plead guilty, the husband does 6 months in jail
   while the wife and does 6 months on parole.

Their dilemma is this:

(a) plead "guilty" to activities that may very well *not* be illegal,
    but that would require an expensive legal defence to oppose, or

(b) protest their innocence, ... but then, besides going bankrupt,
    and besides risking a fine and jail, who looks after the children
    if both parents are locked up?

If the couples don't plead guilty, their trials will be scheduled for
some time next year, most likely in the late spring or early summer.