To make matters more complicated, the U.S. courts have routinely permitted law enforcement agents to engage in what has been called "sentencing entrapment," where a person interested in, for example, looking at a single piece of child pornography, might be induced to look at several hundred, or a person seeking a single marijuana "joint" might be told that he can have a kilogram of THC for the same price. The unwary bargain seeker may then lawfully be prosecuted for the multiple images or the kilo of pot, entrapment notwithstanding.

In Canada, the courts have precluded what they call random virtue testing, which is essentially where they ask people if they are willing to do something that constitutes an offense, and Australian, England, and New Zealand courts have exercised their inherent powers to prevent a prosecution from going forward if there is entrapment.

In the future, we can expect the government to set up more and more of these criminal honeypots to try to catch citizens engaging in all sorts of improper and potentially illegal conduct. Indeed, this will likely be done at all levels of law enforcement and by all sorts of regulatory and intelligence agencies.

This may or may not be a good thing. For those who support strict enforcement of all laws, the lesson is essentially a cross between caveat emptor and "don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time." However, future cases will likely prove that there must be more to a crime than simply clicking a link and more evidence of intent to commit an actual crime than simply curiosity.