General Discussion

cthulu2016

(10,960 posts)

15. If anyone cares about the LAW...

Thu May 10, 2012, 02:39 PM

May 2012

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.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

24 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Child Pornography Legal To View Online In New York; Court Rules Looking At Porn Doesn't Mean Possess [View all] crunch60 May 2012 OP

Would cache or cookies that remain on your device = possession? NightWatcher May 2012 #1

No I believe that is what this ruling is talking about Drale May 2012 #2

That is very much the question here cthulu2016 May 2012 #7

You know when I was in middle school... lilithsrevenge12 May 2012 #3

Did you even read any of this OP? cthulu2016 May 2012 #5

Correct ruling cthulu2016 May 2012 #4

That is outrageous. I have to wonder about the judge's preversions as he seems snagglepuss May 2012 #6

Or willfully aware of the law cthulu2016 May 2012 #9

+1000 smirkymonkey May 2012 #17

I agree 1000% with the decision. It will help reduce child porn and the demand. NYC Liberal May 2012 #20

Mail a porn picture to somebody Speck Tater May 2012 #8

I agree get the red out May 2012 #12

Children are Minors and cannot give consent to sex HockeyMom May 2012 #10

That has nothing whatsoever to do with the decision cthulu2016 May 2012 #11

Bizarre, considering today's climate of zero tolerance on so many issues. nt DCKit May 2012 #13

can't get busted for looking at pictures of marijuana either CBGLuthier May 2012 #14

If anyone cares about the LAW... cthulu2016 May 2012 #15

Correct. Dawson Leery May 2012 #18

Excellent analysis. nt hifiguy May 2012 #22

I'm sure it's legal to look at pot online. HopeHoops May 2012 #16

It's the right ruling... Drunken Irishman May 2012 #19

Horrible headline. That's not what the court ruled at all. NYC Liberal May 2012 #21

Agreed, the headline really set me off, but I can smirkymonkey May 2012 #23

I can too. It's a tricky issue. NYC Liberal May 2012 #24