Child Pornography Legal To View Online In New York; Court Rules Looking At Porn Doesn't Mean Possess

[crunch60]

Child Porn OK, Pot not! Go figure.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/10/child-pornography-legal-new-york-porn-possession-james-kent_n_1505916.html?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl1|sec3_lnk2%26pLid%3D159477

[NightWatcher]

1. Would cache or cookies that remain on your device = possession?

I'm not a techie, but everything leaves a trail and a trace.

[Drale]

2. No I believe that is what this ruling is talking about

just viewing it is not illegal and they can't use your cookies as evidence of possession. You actually have to download the porn inorder for it to be illegal.

[cthulu2016]

7. That is very much the question here

The behind the scenes mechanics of computer software do not constitute intent by the user of the machine.

The fact that the computer might download something in a temp folder does not constitute intent to possess. The user has to make an affirmative and intentional act to possess.

[lilithsrevenge12]

3. You know when I was in middle school...

a teacher was caught with mountains of child porn on his school computer. He was obviously fired and arrested, but after this court decision I think they should have let him be and continue to stare down 13 year old girl's shirts. I'm sure the child porn wouldn't have led to anything else.

[cthulu2016]

5. Did you even read any of this OP?

"caught with mountains of child porn on his school computer"

That is possession, under this decision.

[cthulu2016]

4. Correct ruling

A viewer must make an affirmative act to "exercise dominion and control over the images that were on his screen" by saving them or printing them.

Are the judge and jurors and attorneys guilty of the same crime by looking at the evidence?

Does someone with a security clearance commit a crime by carrying the memory of classified material out of the building?

Does looking at a bag of marijuana mean that you possess it?

This ruling will frustrate people who are uneasy with the very concept of law as meaning what it says, but it is obviously correct.

[snagglepuss]

6. That is outrageous. I have to wonder about the judge's preversions as he seems

willfully blind to the exploitation of children who are being sexually abused.

[cthulu2016]

9. Or willfully aware of the law

This approach is commonplace but somewhat shocking on a progressive site.

You suggest a judge is a child molester because you don't understand a legal issue? That's pretty hoorible behavior, isn't it?

Did you even read the story before speculating about the perversions of this female judge appointed by Mario Cuomo?

The law does not mean "whatever somebody thinks would advance some good as they see it"

A legal decision is not right or wrong based on what somebody thinks about an underlying issue. It is right or wrong as law.

And if somebody thinks that looking meets the legal definition of "possession" then we are going to have to start arresting people who look at drugs and stolen property.

The law says "possess." That word has a meaning in law.

"We further conclude
that merely viewing Web images of child pornography does not,
absent other proof, constitute either possession or procurement
within the meaning of our Penal Law."

That does say, "IS OKAY." It says does not meet the definition of promotion or procurement as a matter of LAW.

If the legislature wants to outlaw looking they can try that, but they didn't outlaw looking so how can we convict someone of looking?!

[smirkymonkey]

17. +1000

Whether you are just viewing it or downloading it, you are still creating a demand and therefore contributing to the exploitation of innocent children.

I'm sorry, but I think this decision is completely f***ed up.

[NYC Liberal]

20. I agree 1000% with the decision. It will help reduce child porn and the demand.

The ruling correctly distinguishes between images that are purposely procured and saved, and those that are simply "downloaded" accidentally, such as those that only exist in the browser cache where it is clear there was no intent.

This means that more people will be able to REPORT the stuff without fear of being charged with possession because the accidentally came across it. As it stands now, anyone who accidentally clicks on a link would simply clear their history and cache and never report it, and the site/images would continue to stand.

This ruling should be applauded.

[Speck Tater]

8. Mail a porn picture to somebody

and then arrest them the minute they open their mailbox. That way we can put anyone in jail any time we want.

Or, put up a porn billboard in the middle of the night and in the few hours before it gets taken down by the authorities, arrest everyone who drives by. And then arrest the workmen sent to take it down.

Sometimes you happen to see things you had no intention of ever seeing, and probably wish you never had seen. I clicked what looked like a legitimate clip art link once and got one popup screen after another with (legal) adult porn, but it was damned annoying trying to close all the windows before another one popped up, and if it had happened at work it could have had dire consequences.

[get the red out]

12. I agree

It can be very easy to ruin an innocent person's life if we are not careful.

[HockeyMom]

10. Children are Minors and cannot give consent to sex

End of story. Adult Porn with legally consenting ADULTS? Different story.

[cthulu2016]

11. That has nothing whatsoever to do with the decision

The court did not rule on whether children can consent to sex. That was in no way relevant to the case.

So the idea that the observation is "end of story" is pretty weird... it's not even part of the story.

[DCKit]

13. Bizarre, considering today's climate of zero tolerance on so many issues. nt

[CBGLuthier]

14. can't get busted for looking at pictures of marijuana either

this ruling in no way says child porn is OK. It instead insists upon a definition for possessing.

[cthulu2016]

15. If anyone cares about the LAW...

The court examined the LEGAL meaning of procurement and possession.

A person looked at images on a computer but did not save them or print them. The state said that since a web browser makes temporary copies of web content in a temp folder then they are on the computer and the owner of the computer possesses them.

The Supreme Court of New York noted that all such crimes must be intentional and that the computer user made no act to save the images and was not even demonstrably aware that he knew enough about his browser cache to know that the computer had saved them without him making any act to do so.

This case has nothing to do with child pornography. It is about the legal meaning of the word possess.

Period.

"We further conclude that merely viewing Web images of child pornography does not, absent other proof, constitute either possession or procurement within the meaning of our Penal Law."
http://www.nycourts.gov/ctapps/Decisions/2012/May12/70opn12.pdf

The judges have no choice here, given how the law is written.

[Dawson Leery]

18. Correct.

This was the proper ruling. It is rare to see such rulings these days.

[hifiguy]

22. Excellent analysis. nt

[HopeHoops]

16. I'm sure it's legal to look at pot online.

[Drunken Irishman]

19. It's the right ruling...

But that headline is awful.

No one should be sent to jail because their cookies & cache might have pictures that are illegal. One wrong click could doom you to sex offender status for the rest of your life - even if you've never looked at child porn in your life.

[NYC Liberal]

21. Horrible headline. That's not what the court ruled at all.

(I know it's the article headline and not the OP's title)

[smirkymonkey]

23. Agreed, the headline really set me off, but I can

see the other side of the issue after reading through this thread.

[NYC Liberal]

24. I can too. It's a tricky issue.

There has to be a way to prevent innocent people from getting put alongside actual child molesters and kiddie porn distributors. Innocent, meaning, people who had no intention of downloading the stuff.