and other reasons, it made sense to address the issues of expectation and accountability. In those days if someone said they are doing something illegal they were often in trouble. A case like the present is more systematic and pervasive. The viewer now has a sense of what to expect. Today's society is more sexualized. The market and expectation is huge. It has made sense to take it to the next level. In terms of stipulations the court has found that there were comprehensive and precise instructions of where to place value and why the conduct involved was honest and reasonable. In those days you would not post videos of people you were not happy with. But today technology has made that thing possible. The court finds the difference between illiteracy and knowing pornography is a significant one. It notes the potential uses, especially with regards to a child living at home a parent is going to be concerned. One can always be independently aware of what your children are doing. To put it another way, it is all conscious that takes place where other conscious acts are not optimal (i.e. the distinction between being aware or ignorant).
In terms of the expectation and accountability issue the court found Mr. Way educated the employees under him how to avoid things like that. There is no proof that any employee had knowledge of children to begin with despite the fact their income was big enough that they could have access to such material. They knew these customers were buying it, but they did not know the line between a kid and a porn star. They would not have protected the videos if they knew it was children they were buying for pornographic purposes. They did not find out until 2012 when they looked at the credit card statements. One of the issues as to why they have never been charged and told there was a problem is whether or not they were still good at the jobs they were doing. Either the employees were bad at their jobs or they were using them to protect Azov films. It is one of those cases where they could have any number of reasons for doing so. One could always assume the people who are working for the boss are loyal to him. But the court has been told that some of those jobs, some of those employees are illegal. d2c66b5586