UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. DEAN PAUL STITZ
US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Thacker, Dec. 14, 2017,
Distribution of Child Pornography- Passive file sharing through “peer to peer” networks constitutes “distribution” of child pornography

Facts:
Stitz used ARES peer-to-peer computer networking software that made child pornography on his computer available to others. FBI agents used the network to connect to Stitz’ computer and download child pornography on three occasions.
Stitz was subsequently indicted and convicted.
On appeal, Stitz argued that passive sharing using peer to peer does not qualify as distribution because there is no specific intent to distribute the child pornography.

Held:
The 4th Circuit held that no specific intent to distribute is required to be guilty of distribution of child pornography. A defendant only has to know that he is doing it.

Child Pornography – It is illegal to “knowingly” distribute child pornography by computer in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce

Child Pornography – “Knowingly” does not require “a bad motive or evil intent”