http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/viewing-child-pornography-not-crime-according-york-court-165025919.html
QuoteIn a controversial decision that is already sparking debate around the country, the New York Court of Appeals ruled 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.
A copy of the court's full ruling on the child pornography decision can be viewed online.
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.
"Some 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.
Regardless of how objectionable child pornography is, making the act of seeing anything illegal is absurd on many levels. Good on NY for once.
I don't know - I mean I know that my computer saves images when I go-to websites and this seems to open a nice loophole. Save it down or keep those pages perpetually open.
Big deal. I'm not sure why even downloading child pornography should be illegal. After all, you can watch someone being beheaded on the Internet, is watching a child porn really worse compared to that?
Quote from: DGuller on May 09, 2012, 12:32:46 PM
Big deal. I'm not sure why even downloading child pornography should be illegal. After all, you can watch someone being beheaded on the Internet, is watching a child porn really worse compared to that?
Nobody goes around deliberately beheading people just so it can be filmed and shown on the internet.
There are plenty of people who do however go around taking sexually explicit pictures of young people for precisely that purpose. Possessing child porn is illegal to shut down the production of it.
Quote from: Barrister on May 09, 2012, 12:41:30 PM
Quote from: DGuller on May 09, 2012, 12:32:46 PM
Big deal. I'm not sure why even downloading child pornography should be illegal. After all, you can watch someone being beheaded on the Internet, is watching a child porn really worse compared to that?
Nobody goes around deliberately beheading people just so it can be filmed and shown on the internet.
:wacko:
Quote from: Barrister on May 09, 2012, 12:41:30 PM
Nobody goes around deliberately beheading people just so it can be filmed and shown on the internet
:lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao:
Quote from: Barrister on May 09, 2012, 12:41:30 PM
Nobody goes around deliberately beheading people just so it can be filmed and shown on the internet.
:hmm: I'm pretty sure that publicity of it is exactly why it's done.
A couple of items to note about that decision:
1) The guy was convicted of 136 separate counts, of 143 charged. This opinion reverses his conviction on 2 of the 136, leaving 134 convictions. I'm sure that will make a big difference in his sentence.
2) If you know about cache files, that's all that's required.
Yeah. Not to mention if it's cached, you've navigated to it, e.g. promoted by virtue of increasing its traffic counters. All this really does is cover a user's ass if they navigate to an otherwise legit website that has pop-ups depicting child pornography.
Quote from: Barrister on May 09, 2012, 12:41:30 PM
Nobody goes around deliberately beheading people just so it can be filmed and shown on the internet.
I don't know... there seems to be tons of psychos on the 'net, I wouldn't be surprised there's some porn fetish involved with that.
Quote
There are plenty of people who do however go around taking sexually explicit pictures of young people for precisely that purpose. Possessing child porn is illegal to shut down the production of it.
true. But I wonder if they produce it because they enjoy it first, or because there's a market to it.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 09, 2012, 02:06:09 PM
Yeah. Not to mention if it's cached, you've navigated to it, e.g. promoted by virtue of increasing its traffic counters. All this really does is cover a user's ass if they navigate to an otherwise legit website that has pop-ups depicting child pornography.
but someone else can use your computer. Anyway, I'm not sure someone would be convicted solely because of his/her cache content. I see it as more damning evidence, but not as a definite proof in itself.
Quote from: viper37 on May 09, 2012, 03:18:42 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 09, 2012, 12:41:30 PM
Nobody goes around deliberately beheading people just so it can be filmed and shown on the internet.
I don't know... there seems to be tons of psychos on the 'net, I wouldn't be surprised there's some porn fetish involved with that.
Quote
There are plenty of people who do however go around taking sexually explicit pictures of young people for precisely that purpose. Possessing child porn is illegal to shut down the production of it.
true. But I wonder if they produce it because they enjoy it first, or because there's a market to it.
I see what everyone found so funny. Yeah, yeah, jihadists. But it's not all that common a phenomenon.
But to answer Viper's question - because CP is so very, very illegal, you really can't make money selling it. Instead it is largely traded by "enthusiasts" - the act of trading one image is seen as a way of ensuring the person is not an undercover cop.
It's also possible that the virus in question downloaded the image, and not the guy's surfing.
It's funny that Barrister Boy would decry child pornography, considering what he uses as his avatar. :yuk:
Quote from: Martinus on May 09, 2012, 03:27:48 PM
It's funny that Barrister Boy would decry child pornography, considering what he uses as his avatar. :yuk:
Wow.
Meh. I'm numb by now.
Quote from: Martinus on May 09, 2012, 03:27:48 PM
It's funny that Barrister Boy would decry child pornography, considering what he uses as his avatar. :yuk:
Do you regularly jack off to picture's of Languishites' kids?
Quote from: Syt on May 09, 2012, 03:33:47 PM
Quote from: Martinus on May 09, 2012, 03:27:48 PM
It's funny that Barrister Boy would decry child pornography, considering what he uses as his avatar. :yuk:
Do you regularly jack off to picture's of Languishites' kids?
Define "regularly".
Really, Mart, really?
Damn. And I didn't think my opinion of Marti could get any lower.
Damn it, my face just got a huge red palm print on it.
Quote from: garbon on May 09, 2012, 03:35:43 PM
Really, Mart, really?
Really what? Why not "really, Syt, really"?
P.S. I think people who use pictures of their kids as avatars are creeps.
Quote from: Martinus on May 09, 2012, 03:37:55 PM
Really what? Why not "really, Syt, really"?
P.S. I think people who use pictures of their kids as avatars are creeps.
Because you are the one acting...childish. ;)
Quote from: garbon on May 09, 2012, 03:38:45 PM
Quote from: Martinus on May 09, 2012, 03:37:55 PM
Really what? Why not "really, Syt, really"?
P.S. I think people who use pictures of their kids as avatars are creeps.
Because you are the one acting...childish. ;)
Well, you are acting boorish. I'm drunk. What's your excuse?
Quote from: Martinus on May 09, 2012, 03:39:49 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 09, 2012, 03:38:45 PM
Quote from: Martinus on May 09, 2012, 03:37:55 PM
Really what? Why not "really, Syt, really"?
P.S. I think people who use pictures of their kids as avatars are creeps.
Because you are the one acting...childish. ;)
Well, you are acting boorish. I'm drunk. What's your excuse?
No, I think you took that prize in the thread, princess. I'm just trying to quiet your drunken lashing out. :hug:
Quote from: Martinus on May 09, 2012, 03:39:49 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 09, 2012, 03:38:45 PM
Quote from: Martinus on May 09, 2012, 03:37:55 PM
Really what? Why not "really, Syt, really"?
P.S. I think people who use pictures of their kids as avatars are creeps.
Because you are the one acting...childish. ;)
Well, you are acting boorish. I'm drunk. What's your excuse?
Don't confuse drunk with vile.
I just cried while watching the last episode of Glee. I need to claw back to the equilibrium.
Quote from: Martinus on May 09, 2012, 03:37:55 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 09, 2012, 03:35:43 PM
Really, Mart, really?
Really what? Why not "really, Syt, really"?
P.S. I think people who use pictures of their kids as avatars are creeps.
Well you're entitled to your opinion I guess...
Marty, what do you find creepy about using your kids picture has an Avatar?
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 09, 2012, 06:02:27 PM
Marty, what do you find creepy about using your kids picture has an Avatar?
He doesn't have kids. Marty just hates children. The whole concept taking care of a child is alien to him.
I have a random google kid as an avatar. Enjoy Pervs!
Quote from: Razgovory on May 09, 2012, 06:06:09 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 09, 2012, 06:02:27 PM
Marty, what do you find creepy about using your kids picture has an Avatar?
He doesn't have kids. Marty just hates children. The whole concept taking care of a child is alien to him.
Which is strange, since he currently takes care of at least one.
Quote from: Habbaku on May 09, 2012, 06:50:55 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 09, 2012, 06:06:09 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 09, 2012, 06:02:27 PM
Marty, what do you find creepy about using your kids picture has an Avatar?
He doesn't have kids. Marty just hates children. The whole concept taking care of a child is alien to him.
Which is strange, since he currently takes care of at least one.
taking care of himself doesn't count.
Quote from: Martinus on May 09, 2012, 03:27:48 PM
It's funny that Barrister Boy would decry child pornography, considering what he uses as his avatar. :yuk:
How is his avatar child porn? and if that's his kid why insult the child? The internet is a great thing, isnt it Mart? I would find it interesting for you to sit across a table (face to face) with BB and spew that crap.
My money would be on BB.
I thought they have met, which make marti even more of shrill ass.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 09, 2012, 09:49:06 PM
Quote from: Martinus on May 09, 2012, 03:27:48 PM
It's funny that Barrister Boy would decry child pornography, considering what he uses as his avatar. :yuk:
How is his avatar child porn? and if that's his kid why insult the child? The internet is a great thing, isnt it Mart? I would find it interesting for you to sit across a table (face to face) with BB and spew that crap.
My money would be on BB.
I've met Marti, and he was a gracious host in Krakow.
He does disappoint me at times with some pretty stupid stuff that he says, but I at least know he only says it on the internet.
He's also bigger than me, so I souldn't be so quick to place your bets. :ph34r:
Tiny tim is bigger than you.
Quote from: Barrister on May 09, 2012, 10:02:02 PM
Quote from: katmai on May 09, 2012, 09:58:12 PM
Tiny tim is bigger than you.
Not yet. :ph34r:
I meant the lame child from a Christmas Carol, not your son.
Quote from: Barrister on May 09, 2012, 09:56:36 PM
He's also bigger than me, so I souldn't be so quick to place your bets. :ph34r:
I saw him in that pink boa. The harder they fall.
Quote from: Barrister on May 09, 2012, 09:56:36 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 09, 2012, 09:49:06 PM
Quote from: Martinus on May 09, 2012, 03:27:48 PM
It's funny that Barrister Boy would decry child pornography, considering what he uses as his avatar. :yuk:
How is his avatar child porn? and if that's his kid why insult the child? The internet is a great thing, isnt it Mart? I would find it interesting for you to sit across a table (face to face) with BB and spew that crap.
My money would be on BB.
I've met Marti, and he was a gracious host in Krakow.
That's good, I guess.
This ruling is almost irrelevant. He could be charged under federal child pornography laws, which have (AFAIK) has not distinguished between cache and intentional downloading. In the future, in similar circumstances, I'm sure the NY state police will just refer this to the feds.
DA FEDS?
Quote from: Barrister on May 09, 2012, 09:56:36 PM
He does disappoint me at times with some pretty stupid stuff that he says, but I at least know he only says it on the internet.
That's ok. I can think of at least three times (in three different threads) where you have disappointed me with some pretty stupid stuff you said over the last 48 hours. The problem is, I have an inkling you think this way not just on the internet.
Sigh.
Quote from: Martinus on May 10, 2012, 01:35:06 AM
Quote from: Barrister on May 09, 2012, 09:56:36 PM
He does disappoint me at times with some pretty stupid stuff that he says, but I at least know he only says it on the internet.
That's ok. I can think of at least three times (in three different threads) where you have disappointed me with some pretty stupid stuff you said over the last 48 hours. The problem is, I have an inkling you think this way not just on the internet.
Bah - after writing, then deleting, a much longer post, I think Zoupa has it right.
Sigh.
I was wondering when you was going to stop biting into the feltch filled pierogi.
Quote from: katmai on May 09, 2012, 09:58:12 PM
Tiny tim is bigger than you.
You don't really think Marti can take a hit, right?
Equating BB's avatar with kiddie porn is about like equating DGuller's avatar with tentacle rape porn.
The good news is - I always wanted to be the kind of dad who annoys everyone by always talking about his kdis and showing them off. So now I know I am. :cool:
Quote from: Barrister on May 10, 2012, 10:10:39 PM
The good news is - I always wanted to be the kind of dad who annoys everyone by always talking about his kdis and showing them off. So now I know I am. :cool:
You got that shit straight.
Quote from: Martinus on May 09, 2012, 03:39:49 PM
Well, you are acting boorish. I'm drunk. What's your excuse?
Being drunk isn't an excuse for anything.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 10, 2012, 10:11:44 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 10, 2012, 10:10:39 PM
The good news is - I always wanted to be the kind of dad who annoys everyone by always talking about his kdis and showing them off. So now I know I am. :cool:
You got that shit straight.
My little guy loves playing with his wooden train set, which is on the floor in his room. But for whatever reason he doesn't like going in there alone. So when he wants to play trains he'll come over and take me by the hand and lead me into his room, then pat on the rocking chair telling me to sit down. Mind you he doesn't want me to play with his trains with him - he gets upset if you touch his trains. He just wants to know I am there in the same room with him. :lol: