The Outhouse - The Greatest Comic Book Forum

[Regulator]

Apparently you're ok as long as you don't save, print or download anything.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/vi ... 25919.html

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.

[spidertour02]

WAT

[syxxpakk]

Don't you Outhousers pounce on New York all at once.

[holtom2000]

Are they also legalizing beating the crap out of your pervert neighbor?

[DMM]

What happens if you're just cruising the 'net, and you get tricked into going onto a site that houses such porn? I'm sure you'd be immediately appalled, and quickly close your browser and try to strike the images you saw from your mind. Now, you take your computer in for repairs for the myriad viruses you've no doubt contracted due to clicking on whatever bogus link sent you to the child porn image site anyway, and now you're arrested as a sexual offender. I mean, I can see where they're going with this ruling, but like all things, it's not as clear-cut as saying it's OK to look at the images as long as you don't go out there looking to download or store them somehow.

[DMM]

what if your favorite porn site has ads with underage girls in them, and now they're in your cache. Obviously, you didn't know they were underage, and you weren't seeking child pornography. You were subjected to view something you didn't want to view. How can you be held responsible for that, if you were doing nothing illegal? What if someone forced you to look at child porn images IRL? Would you also be considered a sex offender or guilty of looking at child porn? I'm merely asking questions. Please don't judge me.

[DMM]

What if you go on a website that is using copyrighted images and music without permission and illegally? Should you be found guilty of using those images/music illegally, even though you were just "passing through," as it were, and not actively downloading said images or music?

[DMM]

I realize I'm not doing myself any favors, here, but I'm just playing Keanu Reeves in a shitty movie with a sexy, but all-to-brief lesbian demon scene in an elevator.

[Regulator]

I realize I'm not doing myself any favors, here, but I'm just playing Keanu Reeves in a shitty movie with a sexy, but all-to-brief lesbian demon scene in an elevator.

I think one devil's advocate scenario would have conveyed your message adequately.

[bkthomson]

I think one devil's advocate scenario would have conveyed your message adequately.

I think I am glad I never saw that film.

[David Bird]

"Absent of other proof" is the key phrase here. If child porn is found in the cache files of a computer, that in and of itself does not prove the computer's user was actively seeking child porn. If the person is a part of a child porn ring, however, it would be proof.

Basically, what the court said was that New York's laws, as they are currently written don't cover this problem and that its up to the State's lawmakers to fix it.

[Chubbles]

If porn sites I frequent had underage girls on their pop ups I'd probably stop going to that site...isn't that kind of the obvious thing to do?

[Wisdom000]

If porn sites I frequent had underage girls on their pop ups I'd probably stop going to that site...isn't that kind of the obvious thing to do?

Obviously, but by then its too late. The image that popped up is already in your cache...

This is why I stopped using newsgroups entirely, but go to any free porn video site, and click a few vids, and eventually something will popup that's questionable, especially if you like amateur stuff

[Chubbles]

I've seen lots of amateur stuff but i guess i'm done before i dig too deep

[S.F. Jude Terror]

If porn sites I frequent had underage girls on their pop ups I'd probably stop going to that site...isn't that kind of the obvious thing to do?

Unless they're cartoons.