Viewing child porn on line not a crime

[Abbey Marie]

And so the downward slide continues. I understand the distinction, but it still is a step in a wrong direction, imo.

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

[ConHog]

And so the downward slide continues...

I'm not sure how I feel about this. I mean child porn is disgusting of course; but what if someone accidentally comes across some and of course it gets cached in their system and they get arrested for whatever reason and boom internet child porn on their computer.

[Abbey Marie]

I'm not sure how I feel about this. I mean child porn is disgusting of course; but what if someone accidentally comes across some and of course it gets cached in their system and they get arrested for whatever reason and boom internet child porn on their computer.

It's not as black and white as would be preferable to me, but in the case of the jailed man in the story, I don't see how he "accidentally" looked at 100 pictures. In fact, as I highlighted in the story, it says purposeful viewing is legal.

[logroller]

I think what they're saying is viewing it isn't looking for it. Legal BS; but I see why they ruled the way they did. Say Jim clicks on a hot young girls want you ad; then images of a 10 year old loads into his memory cache. He clicks away, because Jim isn't a pedophile, but there it is, technically, on his computer. Should he go to jail and be required to register as a sex offender for life? Not for that alone; it's certainly questionable and could be combined with other evidence, but alone it doesn't satisfy procurement and possession.

[Gator Monroe]

Soon NAMBLA will be a Protected Class (Like GLBT) & have special Rights & Protections as any other practioners of an "Accepted" Alternative Lifestyle.

[revelarts]

Another case where hard cases make bad law. or precedents in this case.

It protects an innocent person but also gives an out for real offenders. Depending on the day, it's VERY bad or very good.

[Noir]

Two things to keep in mind-

Context is king, all I would need do is link you guys to my photobucket for example, and you would be linked to a page with a few dozen thumbnails, even of you click off there and then, you visted a site and potentially viewed dozens of CP images. It is also quite possible you could click on the thumbnails, viewing the pics, no realizing that the girls you are viewing are say 15, does thinking you're looking at 18 year olds make you a sex offender?

Also something that I always thinks give a slightly distort message is when you see reports of people who have been found to have 'Two thousand pictures of underage girls on their computer' etc. what they don't mention is that those 2000 pics are all held within one file, meaning one person who once (maybe intentionally, maybe not) downloaded one file has got 2000 odd pics that they may never be able to totally wipe from their drives even if they tried. It's quite possible the same is happening with this 'viewed 100 images' though maybe not, it's worth considering.

[Thunderknuckles]

Tough case. I understand why folks may be angry over the decision but in the end I have to side with Judge Ciparick on this one :
"Merely viewing Web images of child pornography does not, absent other proof, constitute either possession or procurement within the meaning of our Penal Law,".

[fj1200]

It's not as black and white as would be preferable to me, but in the case of the jailed man in the story, I don't see how he "accidentally" looked at 100 pictures. In fact, as I highlighted in the story, it says purposeful viewing is legal.

I think the whole paragraph makes a different statement than just the pull quote:

I am compelled to disagree because I believe that
our Penal Law outlaws this purposeful activity.

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

Sorry, can't grab the whole paragraph, page 25 of the pdf.

[ConHog]

One thing we can all agree on in this thread.

There is no doubt that Jim has porn on his computer.

[jimnyc]

One thing we can all agree on in this thread.

There is no doubt that Jim has porn on his computer.

What scares me is, I've been to a couple of porn sites in my time. A couple. And there are always popups and little pictures on the right hand side and bottom, and boy can they be animated, or so I've been told. And some of these damn sites just redirect you to a totally different site that you had no intention of going to, and that one loads lots of pictures too. Or if I mistakenly was in a forum, and accidentally went to the section where mutual perverts post pictures, it's not like I asked for ID from the other members, not my site, but how do I know what loaded on my computer?

With those 2 porn sites I happened upon, I can only imagine what might be in ones cache. That's why I use the best programs to clean my machine, cache, registry and every footprint imaginable.

I admit I like to see women's boobies every now and again, but stuff that you load accidentally can be downright scary!

[Wind Song]

Soon NAMBLA will be a Protected Class (Like GLBT) & have special Rights & Protections as any other practioners of an "Accepted" Alternative Lifestyle.

STFU you bigoted asshole. NO gay or lesbian person in their right mind supports NAMBLA. I hate the crap you post on this forum. Take your ugly Pope face and get lost.

Consider yourself PERMANENTLY ignored.

[logroller]

One thing we can all agree on in this thread.

There is no doubt that Jim has porn on his computer.

Just in his cache though; that doesn't count. The fact his cache is over 100 GB...well, no its cached, doesn't count

[darin]

STFU you bigoted asshole. NO gay or lesbian person in their right mind supports NAMBLA. I hate the crap you post on this forum. Take your ugly Pope face and get lost.

Consider yourself PERMANENTLY ignored.

You're so full of hate. Your tolerance levels need work.

[avatar4321]

What scares me is, I've been to a couple of porn sites in my time. A couple. And there are always popups and little pictures on the right hand side and bottom, and boy can they be animated, or so I've been told. And some of these damn sites just redirect you to a totally different site that you had no intention of going to, and that one loads lots of pictures too. Or if I mistakenly was in a forum, and accidentally went to the section where mutual perverts post pictures, it's not like I asked for ID from the other members, not my site, but how do I know what loaded on my computer?

With those 2 porn sites I happened upon, I can only imagine what might be in ones cache. That's why I use the best programs to clean my machine, cache, registry and every footprint imaginable.

I admit I like to see women's boobies every now and again, but stuff that you load accidentally can be downright scary!

You could just avoid pornography in general, bro.

I have to say I am happy that the Court didnt just rewrite the statute. If there is a problem with the statute, then the legislature does need to fix it, not the court.

Keep in mind, the man is still going to be in jail a long time.