that slope just got steeper and someones just oiled it

[jack404]

Viewing child pornography online not a crime: New York court ruling

In a controversial decision that is already sparking debate around the country, the New York Court of Appeals ruled on Tuesday that viewing child pornography online is not a crime.

"The purposeful viewing of child pornography on the internet is now legal in New York," Senior Judge Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick wrote in a majority decision for the court.

The decision came after Marist College professor James D. Kent was sentenced to prison in August 2009 after more than 100 images of child pornography were found on his computer's cache.

Whenever someone views an image online, a copy of the image's data is saved in the computer's memory cache.

The ruling attempts to distinguish between individuals who see an image of child pornography online versus those who actively download and store such images, MSNBC reports. And in this case, it was ruled that a computer's image cache is not the same as actively choosing to download and save an image.

"Merely viewing Web images of child pornography does not, absent other proof, constitute either possession or procurement within the meaning of our Penal Law," Ciparick wrote in the decision.

See a copy of the court's full ruling on the child pornography decision.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/92997011/1...ildPorn-Ruling

The court said it must be up to the legislature, not the courts, to determine what the appropriate response should be to those viewing images of child pornography without actually storing them. Currently, New York's legislature has no laws deeming such action criminal.

As The Atlantic Wire notes, under current New York law, "it is illegal to create, possess, distribute, promote or facilitate child pornography." But that leaves out one critical distinction, as Judge Ciparick stated in the court's decision.

"[S]ome affirmative act is required (printing, saving, downloading, etc.) to show that defendant in fact exercised dominion and control over the images that were on his screen," Ciparick wrote. "To hold otherwise, would extend the reach of (state law) to conduct—viewing—that our Legislature has not deemed criminal."

The case originated when Kent brought his computer in to be checked for viruses, complaining that it was running slowly. He has subsequently denied downloading the images himself.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow...165025919.html

[jack404]

How's that for change ...

[Appliancedude]

So want to make a comment. Must restrain

[graehaven]

I'm sorry, but, as a NY resident, and as someone who worked around the state capitol for three years, and even on the specific legislation that originally criminalized the possession of child porn, I totally agree with the court's decision. (I used to work for a Christian conservative organization that lobbied for moral principles in Albany. I was in Albany 2 days a week doing this work.)

It is WRONG for a court to legislate.

You're right, it is a slippery slope, but not in the way you think. The government is MAKING huge inroads in trampling on personal rights. And this is one of MANY. Had I the chance, I would oppose the original possession legislation because it gives the government the "supposed" right to invade your personal private space. It's wrong.

They will start here and expand into more areas - and they already are.

The government should have NO say on what people do on their computer. The government SHOULD go after those who are PRODUCING the nasty material - and that's not what they want to do. They want to go after the end user - because it prolongs the problem and allows them to generate revenue, and also EXPAND control over the population.

It's wrong. Totally wrong.

Please note, I am NOT advocating child pornography. It is evil.

But I am against how the government is handling it. It's wrong. They could stop the influx of it, but they don't want to.

[Shoobee]

I don't quite know what to say about the topic, Jack.

I am glad you are watching the legislation and adjudication for us, and keeping us up to speed.

Child porn is something that turns my stomach however, same as with all the other perversions that can be had from life on this Earth.

I agree with those everywhere who do whatever they can to stop it, from the creation stage to the distribution and consumption stage. And whether they are legislative or judiciary, I think it is the same.

Courts should not legislate, that is correct. They should enforce the law in judgment with trial procedure and findings of fact by the jury together with very strict evidence rules.

I should go back and read the details on this that you posted above, but the whole topic is so sickening to me that I don't really want to pollute my mind and day with it though.

So I think I will wait until a good gun-rights or other political-ideology topic comes up instead. Thanks though, buddy.

[Awtoman]

Child porn is wrong. Period. However, I think the court made the right decision. I have seen images stored in my computer memory that I have never physically seen on my screen, clicked on, or downloaded. Yet they are there. They are usually just random images, not pornographic, just images I never saw on my screen. I would hate to be charged/convicted for something like that.

Tom

[raven818]

I have to give the judge a thumbs up for the decision. He's not on the bench to make a judgement using his personal opinions. He's there to rule on law, as it is written.

More to say, but that covers it.

[Dan01]

Give them the benefit of a doubt.....If there is doubt that individuals may or may not have used or viewed child phornograpy put two shots in the forehead.....A few innocent people may get whacked, but it will be a clear message to those that deal in child pornography.

[Bobitis]

Seems like we're getting very close to 'Thinkpol', as George Orwell put it.

"The ruling attempts to distinguish between individuals who see an image of child pornography online versus those who actively download and store such images, MSNBC reports. And in this case, it was ruled that a computer's image cache is not the same as actively choosing to download and save an image".

If one looks, it's ok. If one saves it to disc, it's a crime?

I have a hard time seeing any criminal intent there.

I have a lotta pics of a friends cars/trucks. Does that mean I wanna steal them?

For the life of me, I can't understand why looking at a naked kid would bring anyone pleasure. But I don't see where any laws have been broken. Looking isn't touching.

Maybe we should destroy the pics of our kids in the bathtub before it's too late.

[mb1]

I think the judge made the right call. As stated above there a couple of valid reasons there maybe "so called questionable pics" on someones PC. Bathtub baby pics, birth photos, streaking toddler photos, should someone go to jail because they have a few pics like that on their PC? Of course not. There are pop ups and malware that blast websites on to your screen even if you were at a completely unrelated site, Anonymous was thought to be responsible for crap like that against corporate websites for companies they disagreed with. So say you click on the Library of Congress website and all of the sudden new webpages start popping open on your screen. Porn, spam, ads, viagra, dating sites, all of the images on those pages are now sitting in your cache even if all you did was close the pages as quickly as they were opening trying to save your work without looking to see what they were. You think someone should go to jail for that. I dont. Now having thousands of disgusting pics saved and cataloged yes, shot throught the testes and left to bleed out, sounds about right.

I read through the decision and nowhere in it do I see a statement by the Judge that says "The purposeful viewing of child pornography on the internet is now legal in New York," or anything that even remotely suggests that. Once again sensationalist BS by a blog "journalist", the decision states very clearly the difference between inadvertant images in a cache and purposeful possession.

[graehaven]

Originally Posted by Dan01

Give them the benefit of a doubt.....If there is doubt that individuals may or may not have used or viewed child phornograpy put two shots in the forehead.....A few innocent people may get whacked, but it will be a clear message to those that deal in child pornography.

That is one of the most irresponsible things I've ever seen anyone write on this forum. Totally inappropriate. So we murder people for looking at something???? You are pathetic. Talk about not having the stomach for something. That kind of fascist attitude is exactly what's wrong with this country.

[raven818]

Originally Posted by Dan01

A few innocent people may get whacked, but it will be a clear message to those that deal in child pornography.

Hmmm. Lets apply that to guns. Start out killing everyone you know who goes to gun shows but don't buy any, just looking. That'll show the manufacturers you mean business.