FLEXIBLE |
Okay, here's more sowing, when will these sick bacteria (they're so much worse than animals) start reaping? And I mean the judges....
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
I can only assume that these judges don't want to see the inside of a prison cell. Damn them.
to stand by and watch this country fall like it is doing is so frustrating.
So by that logic it would not be illegal to hire someone to kill another person as long as you do it over the internet? Why is online gambling illegal then?
Yes, outrageous BUT (said the Prosecutor), the problem is with the statute. While I would have ruled otherwise I understand this ruling (again, doesn’t mean I agree). It appears the statute only covers intentional downloading.
Wow, the hits just keep on coming. It is almost like someone wrote a paper on how to destroy this country.
Holy crap! Somebody did, in the form of the Communist Manifesto and they are succeeding. They have won in the public schools, our institutions of higher learning, the media, the unions, the complete takeover of the dumbocrap party and the partial takeover of the GOP.
We are being attacked on so many fronts it is like we kicked over a hive of killer bees.
It sounds like this is limited to passive surfing. No permission is granted for publishing or purposely storing or redistributing it (so Facebook, a private company that can ban pictures of green dogs if it wishes, wouldn’t be embroiled in this), and probably not for subscribing to a service that specializes in it. And if it’s not actually made from children engaging in the acts depicted, it escapes sanctions anyhow, by a USSC decision of years ago from the Sandra Day O’Connor era — the point seemed to be that the only valid legal reason for such a ban was to prevent children from getting molested or exploited which would be inherent in making genuine child porn.
New York, the Northeast, California and the Northwest are the obvious magnet destinations for all the perverts, degenerates, communists, America Haters, etc.
Enough of them might relocate to those areas where they will feel welcome and protected, allowing the rest of us to live in somewhat sane, normal towns and states.
Maybe all the pedophiles will move to New York.
Read the whole article. The ruling actually makes sense.
The crime is not in viewing alone. If you have a virus or click on some link that throws that stuff up on the screen, guess what, you have just viewed child porn.
So should you go to jail? Of course not.
The state has to amass other evidence to prove that you actually went looking for the stuff and downloaded it deliberately knowing full well what it was.
That’s how I read it anyway.
My cousin and I are writing an amendment to the statute right now.
Hang that judge!
Child predators will now go wild.
And most Republican "leaders," including the likely GOP nominee, also believe, along with this judge, that courts make laws.
An idea that is the destruction of constitutional republican self-government, of course.
They are “progressing” to break down the legal sexual barrior between adults and children. Alot of our elitists (along with the UN) want “consentual” sex with children legal. They want it illegal for parents to interfere!
The gay agenda is centered around “gay” children they target for a reason. It is already named abuse for a parent to interfere in a “gay” child’s sexual expression in Masshole. Grooming children for gay sex and idenity is the way homos reproduce.
I think the courts took this case in order to cause the legislature to tighten the language of the law. The man was still convicted of other child porn violations so the reversal did not substantially change the man’s sentencing. The court seems to be advising the state legislature to adopt the federal definition of child porn.
From the opinion:
The federal statute regulating conduct related to child pornography, 18 USC § 2252A, provides a useful contrast. Section2252A was amended in 2008 to provide that any person who either”knowingly possesses, or knowingly accesses with intent to view,any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, computer disk,or any other material that contains an image of child pornography” is subject to a fine and imprisonment (see 18 USC2252A § [1] [a] [5], as amended by Pub L 110-358, 122 US Stat4002, 4003 [emphasis added]).
Neither provision of the Penal Law at issue here contains comparable language targeted toward the”pull technology” by which one accesses and views Internet images. The words that are employed — “procures” and”possesses” — would not, in ordinary speech, encompass the act of viewing (see State v Barger, 439 Or 553, 563, 247 P3d 309, 314[2011] [”Looking for something on the Internet is like walking into a museum to look at pictures — the pictures are where the person expected them to be, and he can look at them, but that does not in any sense give him possession of them”]). Here, the “School Backyard” Web page was automatically stored in the cache in allocated space that was accessible to defendant. The People did not demonstrate that defendant knew that the page, or any other, for that matter, had been cached.
While the cached page provided evidence that defendant previously viewed the site, the People presented no evidence that defendant downloaded, saved, printed or otherwise manipulated or controlled the image while it was on his screen. That defendant accessed and displayed the site, without more, is not enough. Thus, the evidence was insufficient to show that defendant knowingly possessed the “School Backyard” Web page, either in the form of the cached file or as an image on his screen. It follows,therefore, that there was not sufficient evidence that defendant procured the “School Backyard” page; defendant did not “get possession of [the page] by particular care or effort” (Keyes, 75NY2d at 348 [internal quotation marks omitted]) as by downloading it. Thus, defendant’s convictions under counts 1 and 142 should be reversed.
FLEXIBLE |
My WTF meter just exploded. These idiots in charge really do want to enable morally bankrupt ideals.
Final Score: Defendant 2 counts reversed, 132 unchanged.
Also from the opinion:
We agree with the Appellate Division, however, that defendant was properly convicted of promotion and possession of the “Arina” video, and possession of 132 images of child pornography recovered from the unallocated space on his computer.Investigator Friedman’s testimony established that at some point defendant downloaded and/or saved the video and the images,thereby committing them to the allocated space of his computer,prior to deleting them. Thus, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, a rational fact finder could conclude that defendant acquired the video and exercised control over it and the images (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621
We oughta compile a comprehensive list listing the things the viewing of online or off line should or should not be a crime.
