Posted on 05/09/2012 7:38:26 PM PDT by neverdem
Logic takes us strange places sometimes, like when a judge found herself writing this little gem: "The purposeful viewing of child pornography on the internet is now legal in New York." That's a sentence you'd want to wash your hands after committing to paper (heck, or wash your eyes after reading), but it comes at the end of a line of reasoning in an appeals court decision that makes sense even if it appears to provide a loophole for kiddie porn lovers.
Essentially, the court ruled on Tuesday, you can't be held responsible for things you just see online, even kiddie porn, the viewing of which isn't actually illegal under New York law. As MSNBC.com's M. Alex Johnson reports, the majority opinion by New York Court of Appeals Senior Judge Carmen Ciparik:
"Rather, some 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."
It's true: Under article 263 of New York's penal code, it's illegal to create, possess, distribute, promote, or facilitate child pornography, but it's not illegal simply to view it...
(Excerpt) Read more at theatlanticwire.com ...
There needs to be clear proof of intent. malicious spy and adware has sent me to all kind of places on the net as punishment for trying to clean it out. Fortunately, never kiddy porn. But more than once, I’ve turned on my computer and received a nasty surprise.
I once searched for a file for a game, found it. next time I opened my browser, Candy was spread eagle on my screen. I got my file, but had to wipe my puter out and reload windows.
My brother did an innocent search for star trek, and then landed on a very sick site featuring star trek characters. Type chistian into your search engine and see what you get. These sick sites are very good at drawing you in. they don’t care about offending anyone.
Anything can happen on the net. Emotional laws are not a good way to legislate. That is what dems do.
It isn’t just hacking. These animals are very good at tricking people in. remember whitehouse.com and what happened with that.
type christian into a search and see what you get. You’ll likely get a really shock.
So is incompetence or carelessness in IT security now a crime in your eyes?
I’m quite careless when doing research for books I write. Why? Because I use Ghost and can restore my computer to proper use in under 10 minutes.
Those of us who know how to fix them don’t crap at the possibility of an infection. And antivirus is far from 100%.
Now, I don’t doubt the man was deliberately seeking kids porn, but you have to prove intent, not simply exposure. If exposure alone is enough, you’d have to arrest the judge, jury, and investigators for viewing the pictures.
It’s not illegal at all to make or sell if you call it a nudist family photo and no sex acts are depicted.
Major loophole that I’m sure fellows like Jerry Sandusky appreciate.
Then that would make it accidental or inadvertent viewing of it.
Purposeful viewing IS intent. It would make more sense logically to say the accidental or inadvertent viewing of child porn is not illegal in NYS. Purposeful viewing is going to include procuring it somehow.
I want out of NY ASAP.....
Do you not see the hypocrisy of that position?????
How can you say that prostitution, which is essentially solicitation for sex, doesn't affect others but generic solicitation does?
They're both solicitation. That is simply making one kind of solicitation, for sex, not illegal while other types are.
And yes, prostitution DOES affect others. What about the wife of the man who hires out a prostitute? Her health? Her(their) marriage? Their money? The affect on the kids when the marriage falls apart?
Prostitution is NOT a victimless crime, especially in light of the number of prostitutes who are under the control of pimps.
Reading the post I couldnt figure out the objection to NYS law,. It makes downloading, saving, printing, possession or distributing it illegal. The objection stated above is that ‘viewing it’ is not illegal.
I always object to laws that leave key interpretations in the hands of judges or juries and that sounds like one. How do you prove that someone who didnt break the current law above only ‘viewed’ it?
No I dont want people procecuted for the cookies that are written to their computer.
“It’s not illegal at all to make or sell if you call it a nudist family photo and no sex acts are depicted.”
REALLY?!?!
Hopefully yes. But the company that placed it on there and the person who paid for it would be in a heck of alot of trouble.
There are two threads about this. The other one is (or was yesterday, haven’t looked yet) very contentious. The number of people tacitly supporting that just “looking” at child porn should not be illegal makes me want to vomit and leave FR.
Some made the excuse that people can get loaded up with child porn accidentally but to me that is just an excuse. As you noted, there is a gulf of difference between accident and purposeful intent.
Ah, but if they are under the age of consent it is not their decision as to what is being done to their bodies, therefore what is being done is being done by or at the behest of an adult, who is another person, and therefore is culpable under the law.
Sexual acts, in and of themselves, are not illegal (obviously - people would become very scarce if that were true). Giving people money is not illegal (obviously - charities would be out of business if that were the case). If a woman has sex with a total stranger, then sure, I would class that as an immoral act with very dire consequences, but it isn't illegal, because she has free will under the law to have sex with whomever she wants to (assuming everyone involved is a consenting adult of course). And if a sexual partner gives her money, that is very suspicious, but again not illegal. I'm married. I have a sexual relationship with my wife and I give her money all the time. How can you, legally speaking, separate that from what a prostitute does?
All I'm trying to make clear is that solicitation (by whoever) is what makes prostitution illegal. In other words, if a prostitute or a third party (a pimp) asks for money for sexual favors, or offers her body on the understanding she will receive payment. A sexual encounter, no matter how casual, may be very unwise for all the reasons you list, but it is not illegal. It is the selling of sex that is illegal.
I have an issue with going after someone unless you can prove they deliberately sought child porn. People do end up in a lot of websites they wouldn’t have chosen. Having an image or two in the chache is far from proof of intent to seeking child porn.
I don’t think FR people are wanting to allowed people to view child porn, so much as they are concerned with going after people who didn’t seeking child porn but ended up finding a picture by accident.
That said, claims of a virus downloading child porn into a computer are suspect at best. I have never heard of that happening. I’ve had more viruses than an african brothal, (I’m very risky online), but never one that started downloading files.
If you can't see the difference, I doubt anything I'm going to say can make much difference, but here goes anyway....
There is no sense in bringing marriage into it as an example. Marriage is a commitment between a man and woman to be husband and wife. It's his obligation to support her, sex notwithstanding, based on the marriage contract and his obligation as a husband. The fact that the coincidentally happen to have sex some times and he gives her money sometimes, is irrelevant because he is not buying sexual favors from her in a business transaction as prostitution does.
The very definition of prostitution involves selling the sex, not just having it.
Any female who just gives herself away is not a prostitute. A tramp, yes, but not a prostitute.
Prostitution, selling sex for money or favors, is NOT a victimless crime. Often the prostitutes are controlled to the point of slavery, by pimps. They can and do spread disease which can be passed onto others by either partner.
Just because there are not immediate and dire consequences to prostitution does not mean it's a victimless crime.
Now that anal sex is considered “normal”, this will be the next perversion to demand acceptance.
How is it you extrapolated this from my posts? When making a comment that gets this serious, can you at least reference a sentence, or part of a sentence that you are referring to?
"saved child porn onto another person’s computer" The answer is no, your quip had to do with him letting a friend have access to his computer, so then, why this leap to an extreme?
“type christian into a search and see what you get. You’ll likely get a really shock.”
I guess your assuming this is my first tricycle trip around the block?
“I don’t know about you, but should someone hack my computer and put kiddie porn on it......and the hacker just happened to put kiddie porn on my hard drive.”
You repeat yourself....but, I digress.
“That a picture in the cache only means that they REACHED a website with child porn”
Can a person clear their cache? If so, are there not “shredder” software that will make useless all deleted files?
If I felt the internet was getting corrupt enough that security measures were no longer able to keep me from malicious intrusion......I would simplify what I do and get rid of the internet. Having it wouldn't be worth any implication with this darkness.
It should be illegal of course.
justify it any way that lets you sleep at night dude...
He’s been trying.....
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.
