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

[edjr 5,593]

 

GFIAFP already has his bags packed for New York

 

 

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.

 

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.

 

"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/viewing-child-pornography-not-crime-according-york-court-165025919.html

[NewbieJr 540]

I can certainly see the difference between viewing a jpeg with child porn and actually saving it to your hard drive. Anyone who has surfed the net and viewed porn has probably stumbled upon a picture or two where the participant(s) haven't looked 18. But I think that if there's proof that this is a repeated habit, or that searches have been performed looking for this filth, that should be punishable by law. If it's any turn on at all to look at that stuff, then that person is a danger to society.

[TimmySmith 2,782]

Makes sense. Simply finding a file, any file, on a computer's cache should not be evidence of intent. Finding a murder weapon in someone's possession is not proof that they committed the murder.

[Frank M 181]

I can certainly see the difference between viewing a jpeg with child porn and actually saving it to your hard drive. Anyone who has surfed the net and viewed porn has probably stumbled upon a picture or two where the participant(s) haven't looked 18. But I think that if there's proof that this is a repeated habit, or that searches have been performed looking for this filth, that should be punishable by law. If it's any turn on at all to look at that stuff, then that person is a danger to society.

 

One or two, yes. A hundred? That says something right there about intent.

 

Did the guy not know how to empty his cache? It's not like the FBI was looking at his computer, some nerd from Best Buy probably was.

[edjr 5,593]

Makes sense. Simply finding a file, any file, on a computer's cache should not be evidence of intent. Finding a murder weapon in someone's possession is not proof that they committed the murder.

 

I agree with you. however over 100? I find it hard to believe you can accidentally click on 100 child porn photos.

[jerryskids 5,244]

I agree with you. however over 100? I find it hard to believe you can accidentally click on 100 child porn photos.

What if you stumble on some site, click on a bunch of pics, and it ends up they are all 17 yrs old?

[Frank M 181]

What if you stumble on some site, click on a bunch of pics, and it ends up they are all 17 yrs old?

 

If you were Giants Fan, you'd be disappointed.

[TimmySmith 2,782]

I agree with you. however over 100? I find it hard to believe you can accidentally click on 100 child porn photos.

If doing something once is legal, why does 100 times make it illegal? How can a computer testify against you? The police need to do their job.

[NewbieJr 540]

If doing something once is legal, why does 100 times make it illegal? How can a computer testify against you? The police need to do their job.

?? If the computer's history shows you've viewed over 100 child porn images, then that's some rock solid testimony.

 

Are you saying a police officer should have to actually be hiding behind the sofa and catch him actually viewing them? In that case, no one would ever get charged. Until it was too late and they actually raped some poor child.

[edjr 5,593]

What if you stumble on some site, click on a bunch of pics, and it ends up they are all 17 yrs old?

 

what site would that be?

[Frank M 181]

What if you stumble on some site, click on a bunch of pics, and it ends up they are all 17 yrs old?

 

Also, I would imagine that they were probably pics of kids younger than 17 in order to raise red flags. The guy was looking at child porn, got busted, and caught a lucky break.

[TimmySmith 2,782]

?? If the computer's history shows you've viewed over 100 child porn images, then that's some rock solid testimony.

Testimony of their existence, but not how they got there. The decision means that you are not inherently tied to the cache on a computer.

[NewbieJr 540]

Testimony of their existence, but not how they got there. The decision means that you are not inherently tied to the cache on a computer.

Yay. Let's fight to protect the rights of the child porn viewers.

[TimmySmith 2,782]

Yay. Let's fight to protect the rights of the child porn viewers.

Typical NJ, no ammo for debate.

[jerryskids 5,244]

Also, I would imagine that they were probably pics of kids younger than 17 in order to raise red flags. The guy was looking at child porn, got busted, and caught a lucky break.

No doubt. My issue is that we seem to treat "underage" as a go/nogo at 18 yrs old. There is a big difference between looking at a 17 yr old and a 7 yr old. Seems to me that a reasonable jury should be able to differentiate the two. I'm not sure the court system allows such discretion though.

[Phurfur 70]

what site would that be?

 

You don't know, that is the point.

[JTB 52]

I have been active on a computer for ever. I have never clicked on a link that was for "child porn". Now, if I clicked on a link that advertised teens, yes I guess some could be 16-17, but I don't think it's my fault. Rather false advertising.

 

[JTB 52]

If doing something once is legal, why does 100 times make it illegal?

 

Drinking 1 beer and driving = Legal

Drinking 100 beers and driving = Illegal

[NewbieJr 540]

Typical NJ, no ammo for debate.

I can see your point if it is a work computer or a publically shared computer of some kind. But on a privately owned laptop? I'm not saying the guy shouldn't be able to defend himself. Maybe he let someone borrow it. But then that guy better be questioned. Just giving a widespread 'we can't prove who viewed them so let's just ignore it' explanation, is giving creepy pervs all the more reason to view this smut without worrying about penalty.

 

The law needs to make it harder, not easier, to be a pedophile.

[TimmySmith 2,782]

The law needs to make it harder, not easier, to be a pedophile.

Laws are made to protect the innocent. Search and seizure laws are the ones that we need to hold very dear. This is not a pedophile issue, it is an issue about the ability to link a file within a computer's cache to a person. These are not files which have been specifically and intentionally placed in folders. The person in this case was convicted for those files.

[The Pope 8]

Yay. Let's fight to protect the rights of the child porn viewers.

 

[Strike 4,015]

Drinking 1 beer and driving = Legal

Drinking 100 beers and driving = Illegal

 

Bad analogy. In that case you're not judged on how many beers you have, but your BAC. You could be really drunk after only 3 large Arrogant Bastard Ales. Or you could have 100 O'douls and be fine.

[Strike 4,015]

I can see your point if it is a work computer or a publically shared computer of some kind. But on a privately owned laptop? I'm not saying the guy shouldn't be able to defend himself. Maybe he let someone borrow it. But then that guy better be questioned. Just giving a widespread 'we can't prove who viewed them so let's just ignore it' explanation, is giving creepy pervs all the more reason to view this smut without worrying about penalty.

 

The law needs to make it harder, not easier, to be a pedophile.

 

You think they're not going to fix this loophole?

[NewbieJr 540]

You think they're not going to fix this loophole?

I would certainly hope so

[JTB 52]

Bad analogy. In that case you're not judged on how many beers you have, but your BAC. You could be really drunk after only 3 large Arrogant Bastard Ales. Or you could have 100 O'douls and be fine.

 

 

semantics. You get my focking point!

[phillybear 365]

Wow. The gays are on a roll right now. The courts just made their lives a lot easier.

[Frank M 181]

No doubt. My issue is that we seem to treat "underage" as a go/nogo at 18 yrs old. There is a big difference between looking at a 17 yr old and a 7 yr old. Seems to me that a reasonable jury should be able to differentiate the two. I'm not sure the court system allows such discretion though.

 

That's why I almost exclusively go for the MILF pron. They seem to know what they're doing and they seem to enjoy it more.

[TAS 2]

It seems they should be targeting the people who put that sh!t on line to view, not the people who view it. I do not condone it, but if you like looking at that or chicks doing animals, that is on you. The folks who put it up to be viewed should be the ones they crack down on.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

I guess this brings a whole new dimension to torridjoe's "it is not a crime to be here illegally" story.

[NewbieJr 540]

It seems they should be targeting the people who put that sh!t on line to view, not the people who view it. I do not condone it, but if you like looking at that or chicks doing animals, that is on you. The folks who put it up to be viewed should be the ones they crack down on.

While I do agree with you from a 'cut the head off the beast' aspect, I think the main goal here is to protect the children. It's quite possible that the person(s) who runs these websites are just looking to cash in on all the sickos out there who look for this crap. He may be of no harm to anyone. Could be happily married and loyal for twenty years. But anyone who seeks out and views this stuff is a definite danger to society.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

It seems they should be targeting the people who put that sh!t on line to view, not the people who view it. I do not condone it, but if you like looking at that or chicks doing animals, that is on you. The folks who put it up to be viewed should be the ones they crack down on.

Well, many of those people are outside of this country. Also, you need to cut down on demand and hit the people with a lot to lose.

[BLS 313]

Awww...fuckit.

 

Too much to type.

 

 

 

I just want my own planet. I'm tired of sharing air with the sickfucks.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

It seems they should be targeting the people who put that sh!t on line to view, not the people who view it. I do not condone it, but if you like looking at that or chicks doing animals, that is on you. The folks who put it up to be viewed should be the ones they crack down on.

 

I venture to guess that most kiddie porn is from Russia or somewhere else beyond the grasp of uncle.

[TAS 2]

I venture to guess that most kiddie porn is from Russia or somewhere else beyond the grasp of uncle.

 

Probably.

[Giants Fan 85]

You think they're not going to fix this loophole?

 

Easy fix ... make the age of consent 13.

 

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Easy fix ... make the age of consent 13.

 

 

That just means that you would start going for 11 year olds.

[Giants Fan 85]

I think it should all depend on the age difference.

 

For instance, if a 12 year old boy wants to fock a 12 year old girl, there's nothing wrong with that. (I said wants, not does). On the other hand if a 65 year old man wants to do that, not cool.

[edjr 5,593]

I think it should all depend on the age difference.

 

For instance, if a 12 year old boy wants to fock a 12 year old girl, there's nothing wrong with that. (I said wants, not does). On the other hand if a 65 year old man wants to do that, not cool.

 

/thread

 

everyone delete your cache and don't reply to this thread.

 

We caught him