Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Viewing child pornography online not a crime: New York court ruling
Yahoo News ^ | May 9 2012 | Eric Pfeiffer

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 ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: childporn; homosexualagenda; moralabsolutes; pornography
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-108 next last
If it's legal for dangerous predator sex perverts to see child pornography, then it follows that it will be legal to post it. So Face Book is off the hook.

Okay, here's more sowing, when will these sick bacteria (they're so much worse than animals) start reaping? And I mean the judges....

1 posted on 05/09/2012 1:34:55 PM PDT by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 185JHP; 230FMJ; AFA-Michigan; AKA Elena; APatientMan; Abathar; Absolutely Nobama; Albion Wilde; ...
Homosexual Agenda and Moral Absolutes Ping!

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.

2 posted on 05/09/2012 1:36:45 PM PDT by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

to stand by and watch this country fall like it is doing is so frustrating.


3 posted on 05/09/2012 1:41:11 PM PDT by ColdOne (I miss my poochie... Tasha 2000~3/14/11 0bie don' t eat my dog!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

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?


4 posted on 05/09/2012 1:42:48 PM PDT by Drill Thrawl (The United States of America, a banana republic since 1913)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

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.


5 posted on 05/09/2012 1:43:11 PM PDT by RIghtwardHo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

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.


6 posted on 05/09/2012 1:43:11 PM PDT by Wurlitzer (Nothing says "ignorance" like Islam!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

I guess Face Book is off the hook in NY now.

WND Helps Expose Child Porn Scourge on Facebook

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2881172/posts


7 posted on 05/09/2012 1:43:21 PM PDT by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

—to stand by and watch this country fall like it is doing is so frustrating.—

The bible predicted it. It’s still amazing, though. And frustrating.


8 posted on 05/09/2012 1:44:40 PM PDT by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

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.


9 posted on 05/09/2012 1:48:18 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Mitt! You're going to have to try harder than that to be "severely conservative" my friend.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

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.


10 posted on 05/09/2012 1:49:03 PM PDT by Iron Munro (If Repub's paid as much attention to Rush Limbaugh as the Dem's do, we wouldn't be in this mess)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo

“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”.


11 posted on 05/09/2012 1:49:02 PM PDT by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

Maybe all the pedophiles will move to New York.


12 posted on 05/09/2012 1:49:23 PM PDT by ZULU (Non Nobis Domine Non Nobis Sed Nomini Tuo Da Gloriam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
Isn't it still a Federal crime? If it is it won't make much difference...Osama Obama needs all the campaign $$$ he can get from the Pervert-American community.
13 posted on 05/09/2012 1:49:33 PM PDT by Gay State Conservative (Julia: another casualty of the "War on Poverty")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

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.


14 posted on 05/09/2012 1:49:43 PM PDT by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo

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.


15 posted on 05/09/2012 1:49:46 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Mitt! You're going to have to try harder than that to be "severely conservative" my friend.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Iron Munro

Problem is they want to pollute and ruin every square inch of the globe; they will be satisfied with nothing less.


16 posted on 05/09/2012 1:50:32 PM PDT by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Drill Thrawl
Why is online gambling illegal then?

Because someone in government wasn't on-board, financially speaking.

In one case, there's money to made made. Opportunity cost.

In the other, well I don't understand; but I know there's no money to be made.

17 posted on 05/09/2012 1:51:58 PM PDT by cicero2k
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

We don’t want “do what we might have broadly hinted at” statutes. That is the road to tyranny, especially when the fix is blindingly easy.


18 posted on 05/09/2012 1:52:17 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Mitt! You're going to have to try harder than that to be "severely conservative" my friend.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck; Claud

Note my comment above. It’s mere legalistic crap. So now perverts can make sure they don’t download or whatever. Funny thing is I’ve never accidentally run into child pornography and I doubt very many people have.


19 posted on 05/09/2012 1:52:33 PM PDT by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

Since Obama took office, the attacks on Christianity, in particular, the Catholic Church, and all means of morality have escalated. Same-sex marriage legalization, defense of marriage act not being supported by the feds, Obamacare, border patrol agents thrown under the bus, Navy SEALs thrown under the bus, repeal of DADT, TEA Party thrown under the bus, conservative candidates destroyed by the left-wing media and GOP-e, a socialist elected in France, etc.

With each story like this, I lose hope that we can ever save ourselves.


20 posted on 05/09/2012 1:52:45 PM PDT by NoKoolAidforMe (I'm clinging to my God and my guns. You can keep the change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

The court never said the law can’t be fixed.

This is the thin razor edge that brings in tyranny. Surely we can have a law which neither embraces indecency NOR tyranny.


21 posted on 05/09/2012 1:54:25 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Mitt! You're going to have to try harder than that to be "severely conservative" my friend.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

My cousin and I are writing an amendment to the statute right now.


22 posted on 05/09/2012 1:54:48 PM PDT by Gabz (Democrats for Voldemort.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah; Morgana

Hang that judge!

Child predators will now go wild.


23 posted on 05/09/2012 1:55:23 PM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

Things are not illegal unless a law makes them illegal. Probably the state will fix the statute. I’ve never seen child pornography, but I’ve been on sites where others were cursing someone out for posting an (already removed) picture which they felt was child porn. These were not sex sites. I’d hate to go to jail for inadvertently viewing something. However, it sounds like NY is saying you can deliberately view this stuff on line. I bet they change the statute very quickly.


24 posted on 05/09/2012 1:56:10 PM PDT by Williams (Nobama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Gabz

Why did the legislature wait until the court had said yes this is too cloudy, to make the statute clearer anyhow? I put equal blame on them for the wait and see.


25 posted on 05/09/2012 1:56:35 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Mitt! You're going to have to try harder than that to be "severely conservative" my friend.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Gabz

That is excellent news. Please keep me informed.


26 posted on 05/09/2012 1:57:05 PM PDT by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

Child pornography is NOT “indecency”. It is also rape.


27 posted on 05/09/2012 1:57:52 PM PDT by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Claud

Libertarians will be happy, yay, free sex and drugs


28 posted on 05/09/2012 1:58:13 PM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

Why did the legislature wait until the court had said yes this is too cloudy, to make the statute clearer anyhow? I put equal blame on them for the wait and see.


Excellent point.


29 posted on 05/09/2012 1:58:21 PM PDT by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Williams

They better fix it toot sweet.


30 posted on 05/09/2012 1:58:47 PM PDT by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

I meant it was not “merely” indecency. That’s like calling torture “assault”.


31 posted on 05/09/2012 1:59:36 PM PDT by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

Yes, the creation of genuine child porn is a kind of rape... and so what? 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.

Just fix the silly statute and be done.


32 posted on 05/09/2012 1:59:41 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Mitt! You're going to have to try harder than that to be "severely conservative" my friend.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

At this point laws against child rape mean very little. The justice system is so rotten that I don’t see how it can get fixed without breaking first. And not just the justice system.


33 posted on 05/09/2012 2:01:29 PM PDT by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

It’s not a “kind” of rape. It’s outright rape.


34 posted on 05/09/2012 2:01:55 PM PDT by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

It’s battery too, and so what.

This would be like a law covering the use of pictures of torture. As a knuckle dragging conservative I want everything to be legally in order. I do not want Calvinball in the courts.


35 posted on 05/09/2012 2:02:29 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Mitt! You're going to have to try harder than that to be "severely conservative" my friend.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
"The purposeful viewing of child pornography on the internet is now legal in New York,"

That doesn't sound like "passive" viewing to me.

36 posted on 05/09/2012 2:03:11 PM PDT by Cementjungle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

So you want due process to be broken for the sake of an axe which you feel is worth grinding more than any other axe?


37 posted on 05/09/2012 2:03:25 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Mitt! You're going to have to try harder than that to be "severely conservative" my friend.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
"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.

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.

38 posted on 05/09/2012 2:03:41 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (We're not Republicans or Democrats. We're Americans. Visit SelfGovernment.US.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck; little jeremiah
Why did the legislature wait until the court had said yes this is too cloudy, to make the statute clearer anyhow?

I have no idea. I no longer live in NY but my cousin, who does, brought this to my attention earlier today. We've been discussing it all afternoon and I told her she needed to take advantage of my 20 years experience writing legislation. I'm writing the draft, she's working on a sponsor.

I put equal blame on them for the wait and see.

I agree.

39 posted on 05/09/2012 2:03:59 PM PDT by Gabz (Democrats for Voldemort.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Cementjungle

And so mutandis mutando, all I said still applies.


40 posted on 05/09/2012 2:04:26 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Mitt! You're going to have to try harder than that to be "severely conservative" my friend.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

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.


41 posted on 05/09/2012 2:06:06 PM PDT by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

I will try my best, but as I am in Virginia once I send my draft off it will be kind of out of my hands. I will have to rely on my cousin to keep me posted.


42 posted on 05/09/2012 2:07:05 PM PDT by Gabz (Democrats for Voldemort.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

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.


43 posted on 05/09/2012 2:07:15 PM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]



FLEXIBLE


44 posted on 05/09/2012 2:07:15 PM PDT by devolve (------ ---- ---------toss_subhumans_in_Hannibal*s_wild_boar_pit----------- ---------------------)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

The court may have put it improvidently and even arrogantly, but what this would actually mean is that up to this moment, it HAD ALREADY been legal. It’s just that the stupid statute that so many people thought was supposed to ban it, failed to be clear in a crucial area.

We do not need Calvinball in the courts.


45 posted on 05/09/2012 2:07:23 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Mitt! You're going to have to try harder than that to be "severely conservative" my friend.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

About 8 years ago I tried to talk my wife into allowing me to sell everything.... and use the money to buy a 45’ sailboat to live aboard. Had she given me the okay, we would already be gone.

Our country is being eviscerated while we stand and watch it happen.

“Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people. Those who have known freedom and then lost it have never known it again.” ~ Ronald Reagan, from his first inaugural speech as governor of California, January 5, 1967

Ronald Reagan’s warning about losing our freedoms echoes down through a generation of lost momentum and squandered opportunity.

We now have the most ignorant electorate in the history of American elections. I believe we have the most corrupt government, lawyers, judges and media our country has ever seen. I doubt that we can save this country with only our ballots... not anymore, it’s just too late.


46 posted on 05/09/2012 2:09:25 PM PDT by Gator113 (***YOU GAVE it to Obama. I would have voted for NEWT.~Just livin' life, my way~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa

So the panic appears to be over virtually nothing? The surfing went afoul of law in other ways, so this is just a redundancy that failed?


47 posted on 05/09/2012 2:10:00 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Mitt! You're going to have to try harder than that to be "severely conservative" my friend.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

My WTF meter just exploded. These idiots in charge really do want to enable morally bankrupt ideals.


48 posted on 05/09/2012 2:10:31 PM PDT by BCR #226 (02/07 SOT www.extremefirepower.com...The BS stops when the hammer drops.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BCR #226

It’s like the statute was part of the Constitution?


49 posted on 05/09/2012 2:12:43 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Mitt! You're going to have to try harder than that to be "severely conservative" my friend.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

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


50 posted on 05/09/2012 2:15:54 PM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-108 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson