Viewing Child Porn now Legal in New York

[evilneko]

Why not link to the MSNBC article [http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/08/11602955-viewing-child-porn-on-the-web-legal-in-new-york-state-appeals-court-finds?lite] that Gizmodo is editorializing about instead?

Also, I really don't see anything wrong with this. This quote:

"Merely viewing Web images of child pornography does not, absent other proof, constitute either possession or procurement within the meaning of our Penal Law," Senior Judge Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick wrote for a majority of four of the six judges.

"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."

Seems perfectly reasonable for me. As was already mentioned, it would in effect protect people who end up with underage porn staring them in the face through no fault of their own. Now, people can't get jammed up because of their browser cache. [small]That kind of thing is why, when I uh... consume porn... I use a portable browser contained within a truecrypt volume..[/small]

I don't really think this'll hurt child porn cases at all. The pedophiles that really are a danger to society will have other evidence in their possession, and the producers of it, well...

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Furthermore, it's a very hypocritical thing to begin with, to say that it is illegal to watch somebody do something that is illegal. I have watched videos of people stealing, does that make me a thief? I have watched animals be killed in cruel manner, does that make me an animal abuser? I have watched a man get his head cut off with a chainsaw, does that make me a murderer? I have seen all manners of horrific things and I have viewed them willingly, yet if I turned myself in, they would turn me away, for I have committed no crime. If a man looks at some child pornography, is he a child abuser?

When I think of child pornography, I think of films/pictures where a child was actually abused to create them, not hand-drawn art or stories or adult actors playing a role. Yes, you've seen people fake being murdered in action films, but it's unlikely you've watched actual snuff films.

I agree the whole thing is a huge legal grey area, it just seems like there's some potential for abuse in there.

Why not link to the MSNBC article [http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/08/11602955-viewing-child-porn-on-the-web-legal-in-new-york-state-appeals-court-finds?lite] that Gizmodo is editorializing about instead?

Laziness? I just posted the article someone sent to me. I'll put the more sensible one in the OP.

 

[bobmus]

Furthermore, it's a very hypocritical thing to begin with, to say that it is illegal to watch somebody do something that is illegal. I have watched videos of people stealing, does that make me a thief? I have watched animals be killed in cruel manner, does that make me an animal abuser? I have watched a man get his head cut off with a chainsaw, does that make me a murderer? I have seen all manners of horrific things and I have viewed them willingly, yet if I turned myself in, they would turn me away, for I have committed no crime. If a man looks at some child pornography, is he a child abuser?

When I think of child pornography, I think of films/pictures where a child was actually abused to create them, not hand-drawn art or stories or adult actors playing a role. Yes, you've seen people fake being murdered in action films, but it's unlikely you've watched actual snuff films.

Welcome to the internet, where it's possible to have watched all of these things just browsing one site.
I'm pretty sure everyone's seen at least one horrifying video in their time, where the perpetrator of the act would be arrested for his actions. Does viewing that action make them a criminal? And if so, why?

 

[evilneko]

Furthermore, it's a very hypocritical thing to begin with, to say that it is illegal to watch somebody do something that is illegal. I have watched videos of people stealing, does that make me a thief? I have watched animals be killed in cruel manner, does that make me an animal abuser? I have watched a man get his head cut off with a chainsaw, does that make me a murderer? I have seen all manners of horrific things and I have viewed them willingly, yet if I turned myself in, they would turn me away, for I have committed no crime. If a man looks at some child pornography, is he a child abuser?

When I think of child pornography, I think of films/pictures where a child was actually abused to create them, not hand-drawn art or stories or adult actors playing a role. Yes, you've seen people fake being murdered in action films, but it's unlikely you've watched actual snuff films.

I agree the whole thing is a huge legal grey area, it just seems like there's some potential for abuse in there.

Why not link to the MSNBC article [http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/08/11602955-viewing-child-porn-on-the-web-legal-in-new-york-state-appeals-court-finds?lite] that Gizmodo is editorializing about instead?

Laziness? I just posted the article someone sent to me. I'll put the more sensible one in the OP.

AFAIK drawn/CG child porn isn't actually illegal in the US. Also did you edit in the quote from me? I didn't get a notification. >.>

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Welcome to the internet, where it's possible to have watched all of these things just browsing one site.

I'm pretty sure everyone's seen at least one horrifying video in their time, where the perpetrator of the act would be arrested for his actions. Does viewing that action make them a criminal? And if so, why?

Well, here's the thing.

If it's criminal for someone to take said video and download it on to their hard drive for repeat viewing, but NOT criminal to just bookmark the bloody URL for repeat viewing, then I'd say you're officially in a grey area.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

AFAIK drawn/CG child porn isn't actually illegal in the US. Also did you edit in the quote from me? I didn't get a notification. >.>

I did. And it's not, in Canada either. There was quite a hullabaloo when a known pedarist was let off the hook despite having written/posted voluminous amounts of drawn/CG/story based child porn. But realistically, however odious you might find it, you can't make THAT illegal. Slippery slopes, and what not.

It's hard to browse the internet for long without encountering death or gore.

Dude, I'm 37 in a little over a month, I've never seen a snuff film. It's not like you're tripping over them when you go to get the sports scores.

 

[bobmus]

Welcome to the internet, where it's possible to have watched all of these things just browsing one site.

I'm pretty sure everyone's seen at least one horrifying video in their time, where the perpetrator of the act would be arrested for his actions. Does viewing that action make them a criminal? And if so, why?

Well, here's the thing.

If it's criminal for someone to take said video and download it on to their hard drive for repeat viewing, but NOT criminal to just bookmark the bloody URL for repeat viewing, then I'd say you're officially in a grey area.

It's criminal to download a movie, yet not to stream it for free. Please do tell me how this is different and new.
One is possession of illegal material, one is simply viewing of said material, even multiple times.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

It's criminal to download a movie, yet not to stream it for free. Please do tell me how this is different and new.

One is possession of illegal material, one is simply viewing of said material, even multiple times.

That's copyright law. I'm pretty sure copyright law isn't the issue in question in discussions re: child porn.

 

[DugMachine]

Well that makes sense. Why put somebody in jail for going to a porn site to watch some legal porn but every now and then a CP or two gets by the moderators. Then what? The person who accidentally scrolls by the video gets put in the slammer even though he was there for safe, legal porn?

captcha: knock on wood

 

[evilneko]

AFAIK drawn/CG child porn isn't actually illegal in the US. Also did you edit in the quote from me? I didn't get a notification. >.>

That is a misconception. It actually is illegal in the US.

This would appear to be correct. 18 USC sec 1466A [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1466A] (enacted 2003 under Shrub in the PROTECT Act) does indeed appear to make, for example, lolicon hentai illegal to produce, possess, distribute, or receive. According to wiki, it's been tested in court and has resulted in convictions.

In which case gelbooru better not be hosted in the US. (heck, even safebooru might have problems)

[small]And also the scanlation group SaHa better hope that a judge can see the literary value of Kodomo no Jikan. >.>[/small]

 

[Asuka Soryu]

Really, I can't see the problem with it. The problem is the people who make child pornography and the molesters, if the only thing you do is look at the stuff and that's it, then you really shouldn't be judged as a criminal.

 

[templar1138a]

Interesting thing to note: It's not illegal to view child porn, but it IS illegal to possess it. Know what counts as possessing it? Posting it online for other people to view.

 

[isometry]

Law enforcement should be focused on people who assault minors, or sexually exploit minors for financial gain.

The idea of going after the consumers has nothing to do with improving justice, it's just a way for the law enforcement industry to expand itself and ask for more funding. It's just like the way that the California police unions are one of the primary organizations that push for laws punishing petty drug offenders.

 

[Readial]

Dafuq did I just read?

OT: I hope this is a joke and if it isn't, I just hope it doesn't spread to other states otherwise the whole world will not be safe for anyone... not even your children...

 

[Jegsimmons]

they could not have worded that anymore wrong than they possibly did.

"how about, the viewing of child porn on the web in itself is not necessarily a crime unless sought after or saved, how ever it is the viewers responsibility to report this to the authorities, failure to do so can be considered a criminal offense, you sick bastard."

 

[Irridium]

What about hearing child porn? What if I get sexually aroused by the pained screams of little children? Aren't I a disgusting criminal then?

Yes, yes you are.

I hope that was sarcasm. Getting aroused, for whatever reason, cannot be a criminal act.

Indeed. I've been aroused in situations where absolutely nothing arousing was happening. Sometimes, shit just happens and you randomly get erect.

 

[w00tage]

And again our public servants display their ignorance. You cannot view anything from the World Wide Web without electronically transferring it to your computer, or in other words, "downloading".

Spoiler

The act of clicking the link begins this process, and the downloaded images exist in the computer's memory storage, whether dynamic or static, prior to the rendering applications ability to display them for viewing.

This is not equivalent to having someone else hold the pictures in their hand and you looking at them from a distance. There is no way to do such a thing with the technology in use. In order to look at anything remotely, you must first download it, and you must voluntarily begin the process.

Edit: found where the judges in fact knew about this and decided that if the defendent did not "know about the cache" then they were not guilty. Because deliberately clicking labeled links and outright pictures indicating the content in question somehow does not constitute the intent to possess the content.

By comparison, asking an undercover police officer if you can buy drugs or if they will commit a murder for you IS sufficient evidence to arrest and convict once your intent has been established by the transfer of money.