Corporations can be criminally charged: "Corporations are 'legal persons,' capable of suing and being sued, and capable of committing crimes."

https://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2014/04/what-happens-when-...

I don't know what Microsoft might be guilty of here, if anything. But corporations can be indicted.

Yes but the company can’t be put in jail. At the most they will punish someone if they did something knowingly. That’s the issue with this law, it acts like companies are people, but in the end the punishments are not the same.

The root goes back to the fact that child porn laws do not contain a mens rea. It's a statutory crime: you possessed the image, you're guilty.

Almost every other crime take in account the mind of the accused. Someone who forgot their dog food was on the bottom of the cart and leaves isn't committing theft, as long as they go back and make it right. And on the other end, we execute people who conduct premeditated murder. And also we take in account an accidental homicide due to negligence (manslaughter) as a limited punishment.

And worst yet, how do you tell a 17year364days old's image on pornhub and 18year old's picture? You get arrested for CP on the 17.364 image if you're caught and they know it's bad. Did it matter if the minor perjured themselves? Nope. Did they use a fake ID? Who cares. You're at fault.

Most child porn statutes, even if they dont include a mens rea requirement in the plain language, often have it read in. Child porn is NOT a strict liability crime. Rather, it's treated more like a drug crime.

Stop peddling disinformation.

Strict liability is absolutely in place in many states.

https://kellerlawoffices.com/child-pornography-accidental-po...

Corporations aren't people, but that doesn't mean that they and the people that run it are immune from prosecution. As an example, the Deputy AG in California is considering murder or manslaughter charges against PGE[1].

1. https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/12/28/state-ag-if-pge-cause...

They can be charged civilly for the equivalent (child endangerment or something).

Yeah, that's not the part that I'm disagreeing with.

Specifically:

> If MSFT has indexed without showing any good faith effort to avoid indexing then the DOJ can and should prosecute

That's not how it works. At all. That part right there.

For statutory crimes, this is how it works for people.

"We don't care the reason or mitigating circumstances you have, or even if you did it. You have the $thing , so you're at fault."

(The -1's, this is how statutory crimes work. I'm stating a fact, not making ethical determinations about it. I personally think that mens rea absolutely needs to be incorporated at a minimum.)

As I've mentioned above, child porn is NOT a strict liability crime. The prosecutor will definitely need to prove you knew or should have known it was child porn.

In many states, the possession of child pornography is absolutely a strict liability offence.

For instance: https://kellerlawoffices.com/child-pornography-accidental-po...

The phrase you are looking for is "strict liability offence".