filthy disease ridden queers strike again... delenda est
Posted on 05/09/2012 1:34:50 PM PDT by little jeremiah
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.
< snip >
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
“Why is online gambling illegal then?”
well... then you’d be taking money out of their pocket... impacting them directly. that cannot be allowed
as for kiddie porn, pedophiles aren’t attacking their kids... so it’s ok
/sarc
advertise the everywhere you can... alongside the left’s outrage over the ban on homo marriage. the VAST majority of America will be repelled by what they see
just don’t let them distance themselves from the association
stick this crap to them with a branding iron
Neither have I. Back in the days when I was getting "pop ups", I'd occasionally get an adult porn pop up but never kiddie porn.I've yet to hear of anyone "accidentally" viewing child porn.
It sounded like this was all about things that happened in state court. Uncle Sam didn’t get involved, or if he did we are not told. States can ban things that Uncle Sam bans. In this case New York did — or tried to, but messed up the statute in the attempt.
At the cost of a legal system which is bent according to the prevailing disgusts of the day?
There is ZERO justification.
Anyone who thinks this should be legal does not belong in civilized society. They should be removed from it.
Why is online gambling illegal then?
Cause the state has a hard time getting their piece of the action...
As offensive as the outcome may be (in that the defendant will likely walk), this is how we should want our judiciary to work. The legislature passed laws prohibiting the creation or possession of child pornography, which left a gap (intentional/purposeful viewing). The judge's job is not to fill in that gap and fix the legislature's mistake (that would be legislating from the bench), but rather to faithfully apply the laws, as written. Now that this case has brought this issue to the public's attention, my guess is that the legislature will act pretty quickly to fill in the gap and make this conduct illegal.
We can argue about the merits of the decision (e.g., whether unknowingly-created cache files constitute "posession," but the judge's general approach (not legislating from the bench) seems sound.
Someone needs to check out this judge’s hard drive.
perverts.....
Why?
The ruling is correct because of the way the statute is written - I’m looking at a copy of it - the statute is the problem here, not the judge.
there is no way you "accidentally" stumble across child porn unless you're also "accidentally" stumbling across adult porn sites too...
in either case, the person is a pervert with probably a small member who has to compensate by lusting after small children or women....
actual real children and actual real women are hurt by porn and its minions....actual real life human beings are being objectified...
I find no rationalization for allowing "mistakes"....
filthy disease ridden queers strike again... delenda est
Arggh, people can’t tell questions of due process from questions of what ought to go into legislation. The issue raises SO much hot emotion that rational thought goes out the window.
No one thinks this should be legal (well, except for the sick freaks who download this crap). The issue in this case was whether, under the laws enacted by the New York legislature, this particular conduct is illegal, and the answer appears to be no. The judges note that Federal law was faced with a similar problem — possessing and procuring child porn was illegal, but merely viewing it was not — and that the law was amended to prohibit purposeful viewing as well. That’s the solution here, too, and amending the law is the legislature’s job, not the judiciary’s. Legislating from the bench is a bad thing, even if we like the outcome.
It’s also worth noting that this guy was convicted of 143 counts, and that this ruling only overturned 2 of those 143 counts (in the other 141 instances, this guy actually saved the files to his computer, which meant that he had “possessed” them).
There is no justification for even that much. That judge should be impeached.
Again, judicial activism is a bad thing, even when we like the outcome.
Yes, the creation of genuine child porn is a kind of rape... and so what?
It’s not a “kind” of rape. It is rape. And photographed or videoed, so more sick fiends can take “pleasure” at the rape.
The normal due process of law applies to rape laws too, whether or not you like it. If you would swallow tyranny here that is the edge of a wedge.
Why did the statute not get fixed already, that is the question. You accuse me of wanting to swallow tyranny, pretty strange. The point is that precious few people ever “accidentally” view child porn.
Arggh, people can’t tell questions of due process from questions of what ought to go into legislation. The issue raises SO much hot emotion that rational thought goes out the window.
So people like me are the weirdos, for getting upset that a loophole has been created to allow sick fiends to view child porn. Tsk tsk
At the cost of a legal system which is bent according to the prevailing disgusts of the day?
Your downplaying of child pornography to a “prevailing disgust of the day” is revolting.
How can anyone tell the difference between accidentally cached images and purposely cached images?
And how many people have child porn on their computer that they don’t know about?
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.