zlacker

Does that matter? There was nothing drug specific about the site implementation - you could sell anything you wanted to (gold, collectables, etc).

He provided a system that could be used as a valuable service for legal activities. It could also be used for illegal or banned activities in various jurisdictions.

I'm just saying that it's a dangerous precedent to say that anyone creating a communication or transaction platform can be held liable for conspiring with users who use it to commit crimes.

>>mckoss+(OP)
It does. If you create "the drug and other illegal products and services" market place, it is hard to argue you are not a drug dealer. Intent is a big deal when determining whether a behaviour is criminal.

>>mckoss+(OP)
Intent absolutely matters, yes. Silk Road was promoted by the staff as primarily a drug marketplace. Ross grew mushrooms to sell on the marketplace. It had links to drugs on its sidebar. They had a doctor to give advice to drug users. It was designed specifically not to comply with the law. These are all factors when determining criminality. If a site like Amazon accidentally sold child porn (as an example) via self publishing features, then they wouldn't be liable because Amazon was designed and promoted as a way to sell legal things that follow the law, and they would action the removal of those items when brought to their attention. These would make a strong case that there was no criminal intent on Amazon's part and that the fault was with a third party and so nothing would come from it.

It is extremely obtuse to act as if this sets a scary precedent By reducing the situation to absurd levels. Context has always mattered and will continue to matter.