MMA Forum - UFC Forums - UFC Results - MMA Videos

MMA Forum - UFC Forums - UFC Results - MMA Videos (http://www.mmaforum.com/)
-   MMA Forum Lounge (http://www.mmaforum.com/mma-forum-lounge/)
-   -   Viewing child pornography online not a crime: New York court ruling (http://www.mmaforum.com/mma-forum-lounge/101912-viewing-child-pornography-online-not-crime-new-york-court-ruling.html)

HitOrGetHit 05-10-2012 08:58 AM
Viewing child pornography online not a crime: New York court ruling
 
Quote:
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.

Whenever someone views an image online, a copy of the image's data is saved in the computer's memory 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.

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.

As The Atlantic Wire notes, under current New York law, "it is illegal to create, possess, distribute, promote or facilitate child pornography." But that leaves out one critical distinction, as Judge Ciparick stated in the court's 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. "To hold otherwise, would extend the reach of (state law) to conduct—viewing—that our Legislature has not deemed criminal."

The case originated when Kent brought his computer in to be checked for viruses, complaining that it was running slowly. He has subsequently denied downloading the images himself.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow...165025919.html

xxpillowxxjp 05-10-2012 12:22 PM
wow. Unbelievable.

HitOrGetHit 05-10-2012 12:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by xxpillowxxjp (Post 1583092)
wow. Unbelievable.
It is protecting the people who may accidentally come across it somehow instead of actively looking for it but it does open the door.

For example someone just watching it no knowing that the participants were underage. But if they download it then they are screwed.

I dunno it is a mess regardless.

Hawndo 05-10-2012 12:36 PM
I had an argument about this on Facebook yesterday. I understand the law to some degree, I'd hate to go down as a beast cause I was on porn looking to get some relief and clicked a link that had an okay title/thumbnail and turned out to be kiddie porn, and despite clicking off instantly I went down as a beast. Even if you get let off that shit can ruin your life.

Downloading and consistent viewing is inexcusable but like you said it does open up exploitable avenues for the creeps "I just streamed all those videos you can't touch me" so there is definitely something that should be done, but I can KINDA understand this ruling.It just REALLY needs some work now, this is gonna open up a LOT of nasty shit.

In this instance the dude was clearly a beast though and I don't understand it, he was downloading too.

AlphaDawg 05-11-2012 03:26 AM
People will try to make a big deal out of this just because it's child porn but it's actually very understandable. Good call.

HitOrGetHit 05-11-2012 08:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaDawg (Post 1583251)
People will try to make a big deal out of this just because it's child porn but it's actually very understandable. Good call.
The law itself is understandable in the sense that it protects people who are unaware that what they are viewing contains underage people in it. The problem is that yes it does open the door for anyone to go out and "accidentally" look at it now and as long as it is not downloaded or saved then it is fair play.

So yes it is reasonable for honest mistakes but in no way is a great thing either.

AlphaDawg 05-11-2012 03:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HitOrGetHit (Post 1583302)
The law itself is understandable in the sense that it protects people who are unaware that what they are viewing contains underage people in it. The problem is that yes it does open the door for anyone to go out and "accidentally" look at it now and as long as it is not downloaded or saved then it is fair play.

So yes it is reasonable for honest mistakes but in no way is a great thing either.
I don't think it should be a crime, even for those who look at it intentionally. You have no way of knowing how old the person is when you see the picture. One can use common sense and assume that's only a child by the way they look, but that's only an assumption. Also, what if someone gets an email of family photos and one of the pictures is a naked photo of his baby niece, does he deserve to be put in prison? He intentionally opened the email, downloaded the images and looked at them; just like people who do it with other intentions. All around I just think the concept of simply looking at a picture is vague and shouldn't be considered a crime. Too many innocent people could get hurt by it.

Here's a perfect story; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-17274848.

This guy reported images on his computer to the police but they thought he was a criminal because of it. He wasn't allowed to see his own kids for 4 months.

Roflcopter 05-11-2012 06:09 PM
The child porn laws are dumb and excessive. People get like 10 years for that stuff.

They should be dedicating their resources to finding the nuts who film those videos and not the sickos masturbating to it....and the few that do it accidentally.


To the above, fairly certain baby pictures aren't considered lewd or pornographic.

xxpillowxxjp 05-11-2012 07:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roflcopter (Post 1583477)
The child porn laws are dumb and excessive. People get like 10 years for that stuff.

They should be dedicating their resources to finding the nuts who film those videos and not the sickos masturbating to it....and the few that do it accidentally.


To the above, fairly certain baby pictures aren't considered lewd or pornographic.
Im sure they do that but 90% of it is uploaded from foreign countries so not much can be done.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:48 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.8 , Copyright ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.3.2