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.
“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.
The fact that you are agreeing with their foul hair splitting is nauseating. Child pornography is so evil, so revolting, that no hair splitting whitewashes a poorly written statute. At some point right and wrong trump petty legalistic “how many legalisms can dance on the head of a pin”.
It’s difficult, but I would agree that the right thing was done in stating that the statue did not apply if in fact it was carelessly worded. Now it’s up to the legislature to fix it.
Very interesting point! I do a lot of digging and have ended up places I had no desire to go. What it’s called when you click on a site and it doesn’t loads and takes you some other place? (stream rotator or something like that?)