Wrestling Forum banner

1 - 20 of 55 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
270 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
If you can make it here, you can make it anywhere, baby! The Empire State is now the home of a whole new kind of dreamer, after a judge ruled merely looking at child pornography online is no crime. What.

The case, which centered around a professor who had viewed "hundred" of child porn pics, found that he did no wrong because there was no Right Click > Save As. The mere contact of kiddie porn to eyeballs over the internet—hundreds of times over—was the same as looking at a picture of a lolcat. This seems impossibly horrible and wrong, but, technically, the ruling is sound, MSNBC reports:

"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.

Instead, you actually need to deliberately save child porn to your hard drive, or some other explicit HELLO YES I AM CONSUMING KIDDIE PORN action, including—seriously—printing it out:

"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."

Ciparick follows the logical extension of this legislative absurdity (and then does nothing to stop it).

A person can view hundreds of these images, or watch hours of real-time videos of children subjected to sexual encounters, and as long as those images are not downloaded, printed or further distributed, such conduct is not proscribed.

Thanks for that, appeals court. You're doing a great job upholding the spirit of the laws that prevent horrendous child abuse.

But wait, what about browser caches? Whenever you look at an image online, it's cached on your computer—even if you don't choose to save it. Too bad, says federal law. As the Atlantic Wire points out, federal rules against child porn don't mention caching at all. And now, in New York State at least, caching doesn't count as a download, and as long as you throw up your hands and say "What? Internet? A cache download? What? What is child abuse?" when the police arrive to arrest you for being a child pornography enjoying horror. Simply, you're not responsible for what you look at anymore.

This makes sense for the few times when innocent people might accidentally stumble upon kiddie porn while browsing for other stuff, but for the vast majority of people who are viewing kiddie porn because they enjoy deliberately, repeatedly viewing kiddie porn, New York just built a giant, disgusting lubricated loophole. There's a clear difference between the two—one is a gross bit of internet bad luck, and the other is a criminal lifestyle.

This strikes us as something the state (and Congress) should reexamine really fast, before it become's America's #1 destination for human scum. Laws that deal with computers need to wrap themselves around how we actually use computers, not be snagged on the most literal technicalities. Unless we want our laws to start doing things like inadvertently permitting kiddie porn. Stuff like that.

You can read the court's ruling in its entirety below. Uh, go Yankees? [MNSBC via Atlantic Wire]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/92997011/120508-NY-ChildPorn-Ruling
:argh:
 

·
Marine Til Death
Joined
·
184 Posts
Seriously, what the fuck? So if you're intentionally viewing it but not saving it, it is OK? The fuck is wrong with this law? The fuck is wrong with that judge who said it was OK? The fuck is wrong with New York? Where the fuck is John Rocker when you need him?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
17,419 Posts
Finally, geesh!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,868 Posts
Between this and the NC thing, I have lost even more respect for the human race
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
6,531 Posts
Don dRaper
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
592 Posts
Unfortunately, based on the text of the law, the judge is right. Its a terrible loophole that has been found and needs to be addressed ASAP. I am actually curious about when the law was written and passed. A lot of laws in regards to electronics and the internet are extremely dated.
 

·
Is a Snit Head
Joined
·
22,249 Posts
The judge is supposed to follow the law and in this case that's what he did. I'm sure he the law will be re-written to fix this problem because right now it's a mistake that was made years ago when the law was written. It kind of makes sense though since if just seeing the child porn was illegal everyone in this thread (the Americans at least) would have committed a crime if I posted a picture of child porn into this thread. The wording certainly needs to be fixed so a distinction can be made to tell apart the people that see this stuff by mistake and the people that go out of their way to find it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,963 Posts
Well, if you watch kiddie porn, you shouldn't save it in the first place. What kind of dumbfuck does that?

As for the actual ruling,it's obviously going to be abused by some pedoes with internet connection,but I can't argue with it. I mean, it supposedly protects those who somehow accidentally stumble across CP, say when they were looking for something completely different (maybe they clicked on the wrong link or something). The downside is even if someone has saved CP on their computer, they could just wipe it all off and that's that as long as there is no solid evidence against them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
270 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
Well only a majority of 4 of the 6 judges agreed the man didn't break the law, so evidently 2 of them thought otherwise.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
270 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
Better to rule against the perv for the sake of your judgeship's reputation if nothing else and let the fucker take his chances with the appeal system.

Posting this Judge Caparick bitch's picture now to SHAME this despicable woman.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,634 Posts
I've often wondered the levels of legality of looking at child porn. How do they decifer wether somebody found it by accident or if they seek it out? If somebodies looked at 100's of images then surely they're guilty...
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
8,732 Posts
It's a tough one, as theoretically it's possible to accidentally view child porn on the internet. Though if there is a clear pattern of viewing such material, then surely the law should be able to react to that.
 

·
The Sundance Kid
Joined
·
18,630 Posts
Can't say I've ever seen child porn on the internet (or anywhere else, obviously), so I don't see "oh but what if someone comes across it accidentally" as a valid argument here. Never happened to me and I've been to some dark corners of the internets.
 
1 - 20 of 55 Posts
Top