New York says that viewing child porn on the internet is now legal. Do you agree?
|
|
|||||
|
18 votes
|
|
22% | |||
|
56 votes
|
|
67% | |||
|
9 votes
|
|
11% | |||
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.
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.
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.
Read More: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/viewing-child...
Do I thing that they need to repair their laws, YES!
I agree this was a flawed decision, but you should try to get your facts straight.
"[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."
That was the opinion of the judge, take it up with them.
With that said, how many times have we done a search on the net, and regardless of how we word the search criteria, all kinds of "other" results also pop up? Yes, there are filters we can set... So, each time we innocently search and "other" results show up, the computer is automatically storing such images in the cache...
So, without other proof of illicit act and intention, this automatic storing of such images should not considered illegal... How many people would be in facing charges or already our prisons for something they did not intentionally or willfully do?
Now, if there is other evidence in existence that the act was intentional, then and only then should charges be brought against the individual.
I say TOUCH MY KID IN ANY FASHION AND YOUR BUTT BELONGS TO ME...AND SOMEONE IS GOING TO LOOK MIGHTY FUNNY GOING TO THE POLICE STATION LOOKING LIKE A LOLLY POP ON A STICK.
All I'm saying is that the laws need to be clearer... to protect those who unintentionally stumble into it... but come down hard on those who view it intentionally....
I agree with you... someone looks at my kids... well, now my grandkids... in that way, there will be hell to pay....
I hope that clears it up... Some do say that, if no one looks at child porn, it won't exist... that won't happen, unfortunately... it will always be out there, so we have to make the laws clearer, more precise... hard on those guilty of intentional viewing... but not go after one's who unintentionally come across it... there has to be proof that the person intentionally and knowingly looked for it and viewed it...
I had a case involving my own daughters many years ago... and trust me, I pursued it it legally... but it disgusted me knowing t...
All I'm saying is that the laws need to be clearer... to protect those who unintentionally stumble into it... but come down hard on those who view it intentionally....
I agree with you... someone looks at my kids... well, now my grandkids... in that way, there will be hell to pay....
I hope that clears it up... Some do say that, if no one looks at child porn, it won't exist... that won't happen, unfortunately... it will always be out there, so we have to make the laws clearer, more precise... hard on those guilty of intentional viewing... but not go after one's who unintentionally come across it... there has to be proof that the person intentionally and knowingly looked for it and viewed it...
I had a case involving my own daughters many years ago... and trust me, I pursued it it legally... but it disgusted me knowing that, in an effort to investigate and proceed, the law enforcement officers ahd to view the photos of my daughters... and even with the photos, the person got away with it... I was warned not to do anything to him, because they'd look right at me...
"In 2007, the British-based Internet Watch Foundation reported that child pornography on the Internet is becoming more brutal and graphic, and the number of images depicting violent abuse has risen fourfold since 2003.[43] The CEO stated "The worrying issue is the severity and the gravity of the images is increasing. We're talking about prepubescent children being raped." About 80 percent of the children in the abusive images are female, and 91 percent appear to be children under the age of 12."
"Children of all ages, including infants,[27] are abused in the production of pornography.[9][16] The United States Department of Justice estimates that pornographers have recorded the abuse of more than one million children in the United States alone.[28] There is an increasing trend towards younger victims and greater brutality; according to Flint Waters, an investigator with the federal Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force, "These guys are raping infants and toddlers. You can hear the child crying, pleading for help in the video. It is horrendous."[29] According to the World Congress against Commercial Sexual Expl...
"In 2007, the British-based Internet Watch Foundation reported that child pornography on the Internet is becoming more brutal and graphic, and the number of images depicting violent abuse has risen fourfold since 2003.[43] The CEO stated "The worrying issue is the severity and the gravity of the images is increasing. We're talking about prepubescent children being raped." About 80 percent of the children in the abusive images are female, and 91 percent appear to be children under the age of 12."
"Children of all ages, including infants,[27] are abused in the production of pornography.[9][16] The United States Department of Justice estimates that pornographers have recorded the abuse of more than one million children in the United States alone.[28] There is an increasing trend towards younger victims and greater brutality; according to Flint Waters, an investigator with the federal Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force, "These guys are raping infants and toddlers. You can hear the child crying, pleading for help in the video. It is horrendous."[29] According to the World Congress against Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children, "While impossible to obtain accurate data, a perusal of the child pornography readily available on the international market indicates that a significant number of children are being sexually exploited through this medium."[30]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The viewers belong in jail right next to the producers and they need to be violated in the worse ways and even then they will never comprehend what it's like to be a 3-year-old child screaming while some sick F**k is ripping them apart! What's counter productive is the fact that our justice system is too lenient. The producers and the viewers know that it is wrong but yet they do it anyway. They have opportunity to get help, but they don't. What kind of human being can watch an infant girl get raped while she's screaming and be ok with that???? They are human garbage and need to be removed from society ... period! They are NOT the victims here. THE CHILDREN ARE!!
That said, I don't think you should be punished for a couple of images in your cache, but 100 images is pretty clear evidence that he was actively viewing it.
I wish our SCOTUS would stop making laws up as they go and bounce it back into Congresses lap, to do the hard work they try to avoid.
I think that searching for, viewing, or downloading of child porn should be a crime as it encourages the perverts that post it to post more. As I said, it's very easy to tell whats accidental or a redirection or what has been actively sought out.
Time for the legislature to get their butts in gear as the judge ruled the only way he could under the law and circumstances probably.
The court ruled that current laws exclude VIEWING as long as you don't download.
"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."
Here we have the Judicial Branch doing their job and asking the Legislative Branch to do theirs. (The Judicial Branch doesn't write laws)
It is now up to the Legislature to amend the laws to make it illegal to view child porn. I'm writing my reps.
Nice trick question BTW.