Skip to comments.Looking at Child Porn Is Totally Legal in New York State
Posted on 05/09/2012 7:38:26 PM PDT by neverdem
Logic takes us strange places sometimes, like when a judge found herself writing this little gem: "The purposeful viewing of child pornography on the internet is now legal in New York." That's a sentence you'd want to wash your hands after committing to paper (heck, or wash your eyes after reading), but it comes at the end of a line of reasoning in an appeals court decision that makes sense even if it appears to provide a loophole for kiddie porn lovers.
Essentially, the court ruled on Tuesday, you can't be held responsible for things you just see online, even kiddie porn, the viewing of which isn't actually illegal under New York law. As MSNBC.com's M. Alex Johnson reports, the majority opinion by New York Court of Appeals Senior Judge Carmen Ciparik:
"Rather, 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."
It's true: Under article 263 of New York's penal code, it's illegal to create, possess, distribute, promote, or facilitate child pornography, but it's not illegal simply to view it...
(Excerpt) Read more at theatlanticwire.com ...
Mis-leading headline, if you read the story.
There was a thread on here about someone that saved child porn onto another person’s computer, and the one that had the material saved onto the hard drive got jail time until the offender was found.
I don’t know about you, but I think it’s a good law, that protects people from hackers, and not just those that view your keystrokes, or plant a virus on your computer.
Does it provide for an exclusion for those who are victims of a computer hack?
It is worse than that. It says it is ALREADY illegal to download it.
The complaint HERE is that it is NOT illegal if your computer goes to a page with that porn on it because then you ‘viewed’ it. Or if someone else shows it to you.
So do they prosecute us based on the cookies that were on our computer? Or put Spyware on our computers that cam-cords us covertly and sends the video out to them like a Cyber virus??
Yes we should trust Obama with that power.
“Does it provide for an exclusion for those who are victims of a computer hack?”
Do you mean like what happened to Congressman Anthony Weiner?
A lot of folks on this thread don’t know what the hell they’re talking about.
You can watch it without downloading it.
I used to do my computer stuff at an Internet cafe, and a guy was downloading kiddie porn at one of the computers. The guy next to him saw him doing it and called the cops.
They were there in seconds. Grabbed the guy, secured the computer, left a female cop there to watch the computer so no one messed with it, and went to get the cyber squad or whatever it’s called.
Yes, but, you say this is what it is.....and I say, It'll get “progressively” worse because there is not an anchor in the Truth anymore.
You see it as good. I see it as incremental backsliding into darkness.
Do we really need to protect all dumb-asses that would allow someone the access to such a wide open playground of darkness that is the internet?
I use the internet....productively.
But, no one gets on my computer, it is a responsibility.
Yeah, we are saving some dumb ass from himself...I get it.
The whole point of hacking a computer is to gain access to someone’s machine that doesn’t want you to have access. Stuff like saved financial data on Excel spreadsheets, things like that.
I don’t know about you, but should someone hack my computer and put kiddie porn on it, I’d rather the FBI track down the person that hacked me, over putting me in jail for 10 years, making me register as a sex offender, and destroying my life because I was a victim of a computer hack, and the hacker just happened to put kiddie porn on my hard drive.
However, there are several safety guards that common individuals can partake of.
I use Ubuntu on my home computer with other security measures.
My laptop has US gummit grade Norton on it.
I know that this doesn't preclude a dark possibility, however, it does greatly reduce the likely-hood.
But, I doubt the individual that had the friend put porn on his computer really qualifies as “having taken measures” to minimize these possibilities.
FReepmail me if you want on or off my New York ping list.
Similarly its not actually illegal to take drugs, even hefty class A major addictive substances. Its illegal to trade in them, to own them, to distribute them and make them, but not actually to take them.
Add to that the stigma of being accused of such even though someone could be a victim of such a website and be totally innocent, such is so devastating to one's career and life that I believe caution should used when going after such criminals. However I got no problem whatsoever with someone who is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to have their lives snuffed out for good.
YEp. This is the typical existential approach to pedophilia: the kid molested me, I had no idea. THis is the way the communist thinks and acts, and it rapes and constricts in sin slavery.
The key test of course is to remove the material and ask people to free the children and pardon those homosexuals who got into the gay marriage scam and turn their lives around to support heterosexual marriage... but, nah... this is a mandate to suicide and starvation.
New York State and Obama are rapists.
Oh, we are living in Obama’s Kenya jungle all right, with roaming wolves and “accidental” existential bullies. The Nazies did not know it, right? I mean, it’s not like they were not raping the farms of Europe dry...
I would hope there is a qualifier to the effect of “purposefully” in the language... this used to be understood in older criminal law but mens rea has fallen by the wayside in many criminal law applications today.
except these are children that are being exploited and are under the age of consent...
not being a proponent nor a user of porn, this is a good decision. There is a way to discern between a purposeful act of downloading and maintaining a collection of child porn for distribution and a person going to one website and through a blind click, going to a misrepresented website and getting images dumped on to browser history/cache.
I remember my dad (NYPD) was doing a sting back in the 80’s right before he retired and they had to get people to ask for and purchase imagery that they wanted to be child porn. Then when it was just pictures of adults instead, they raised hell and got pinched. They used to rent hotel rooms and share the stuff but now they can do it online.
The police could not just hang pictures in a store window and arrest everyone that walked by. The active intent is illegal.
I think it was these types of cases that made my dad pretty much lose hope in humanity and retire.
Yes, paying for it counts because that’s an “affirmative act.” In this case there was no evidence that that occurred.
Incredibly misleading headline, BTW. (But that’s the headline from the original article, so what can you do)
Anyone carelessly surfing the net runs across a great many undesirable images. All that is being said is that you have to prove intent. That a picture in the cache only means that they REACHED a website with child porn, not that they intended to go there. otherwise investigators who have to examine these pictures would be guilt simply for seeing them, as would the jury who has to see the evidence.
Now it obvious this guy wants child porn, but each criminal count must be proved seperately. These counts under discussion only have proof that here reached these pictures, not that here chose to do so. Bare in mind here was convicted on the other counts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.