So in New York it's apparently legal to VIEW Child Porn, but not POSSESS it.

Started by Chris Brady, May 10, 2012, 02:25:17 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Chris Brady

According to this ruling, where they found a man guilty for owning over 100 such images on his system.

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

Personally, I think it's a good ruling.  Sometimes, you click a link (especially when surfing for LEGAL porn) and boom a second window bypasses your ad blocker to say, a Russian site featuring what could be underaged nudes.  You did not want to go there, but it's in your Internet Explorer cache, not as actual images, but as an IP addressed logged as visited.  Previously, you could have been nailed for child pornography, but now there's an argument claiming intent is actually downloading them onto the machine.
My O&Os Peruse at your doom.

So I make a A&A thread but do I put it here?  No.  Of course not.

Also, I now come with Kung-Fu Blog action.  Here:  Where I talk about comics and all sorts of gaming

Callie Del Noire

I can see where it might be an issue if presented like that.

Slipperly slope and all that. Presumption of innocence and guilt has always been a tricky thing in these cases.

Chris Brady

Especially since emotion rather than reason tends to rule here.

Sadly, accidents happen, and people like porn.
My O&Os Peruse at your doom.

So I make a A&A thread but do I put it here?  No.  Of course not.

Also, I now come with Kung-Fu Blog action.  Here:  Where I talk about comics and all sorts of gaming

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: Chris Brady on May 10, 2012, 02:38:36 PM
Especially since emotion rather than reason tends to rule here.

Sadly, accidents happen, and people like porn.

Not to mention what is defined by one jurisdiction isn't the same as another. So what might not be porn in say.. Japan/Asian, won't be the same in the US.

Chris Brady

Which brings up another contentious issue.

Cartoon porn.  In some states (and I think in some Canadian provinces) you can get nailed for having a DRAWING of a underage fictional character.

I think part of the big issue is that a lot of people attach thought crime and committing said crime to the SAME act.  Which is wrong.  How many times have people said, or thought, that "God, I'm gonna kill him/her for doing that!"  But never acted on it?  I'm pretty sure everyone on the entire world thought of it at some point.  Which means, we're ALL potential murders and should be locked up.

Every single member of the human race.

That's just wrong.
My O&Os Peruse at your doom.

So I make a A&A thread but do I put it here?  No.  Of course not.

Also, I now come with Kung-Fu Blog action.  Here:  Where I talk about comics and all sorts of gaming

Torch

Quote from: Chris Brady on May 10, 2012, 02:49:15 PM
I think part of the big issue is that a lot of people attach thought crime and committing said crime to the SAME act.  Which is wrong.  How many times have people said, or thought, that "God, I'm gonna kill him/her for doing that!"  But never acted on it?  I'm pretty sure everyone on the entire world thought of it at some point.  Which means, we're ALL potential murders and should be locked up.

Every single member of the human race.

That's just wrong.

From a legal standpoint, only actions are considered criminal acts and can be prosecuted. One can think whatever he or she likes, one just cannot act on it (or say it out loud, which could be considered a threat if it includes immediate or pending physical harm).

I don't know of anyone who truly believes that thoughtcrimes should be prosecuted, other than the Thought Police in Orwell's 1984.
"Every morning in Africa, a gazelle wakes up. It knows it must outrun the fastest lion or it will be killed. Every morning in Africa, a lion wakes up. It knows it must run faster than the slowest gazelle, or it will starve. It doesn't matter whether you're a lion or a gazelle, when the sun comes up, you'd better be running."  Sir Roger Bannister


Erotic is using a feather. Kinky is using the whole chicken.

On's and Off's

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: Torch on May 10, 2012, 04:41:22 PM
From a legal standpoint, only actions are considered criminal acts and can be prosecuted. One can think whatever he or she likes, one just cannot act on it (or say it out loud, which could be considered a threat if it includes immediate or pending physical harm).

I don't know of anyone who truly believes that thoughtcrimes should be prosecuted, other than the Thought Police in Orwell's 1984.

I think there are several tea party types that would think it would be.

Torch

Quote from: Callie Del Noire on May 10, 2012, 04:45:49 PM
I think there are several tea party types that would think it would be.

Oh, I wouldn't be surprised if they might whisper it in certain circles, but to say it out loud with firm conviction in a public forum?

Sheer political suicide.
"Every morning in Africa, a gazelle wakes up. It knows it must outrun the fastest lion or it will be killed. Every morning in Africa, a lion wakes up. It knows it must run faster than the slowest gazelle, or it will starve. It doesn't matter whether you're a lion or a gazelle, when the sun comes up, you'd better be running."  Sir Roger Bannister


Erotic is using a feather. Kinky is using the whole chicken.

On's and Off's

Oniya

Quote from: Chris Brady on May 10, 2012, 02:49:15 PM
I think part of the big issue is that a lot of people attach thought crime and committing said crime to the SAME act.  Which is wrong.  How many times have people said, or thought, that "God, I'm gonna kill him/her for doing that!"  But never acted on it?  I'm pretty sure everyone on the entire world thought of it at some point.  Which means, we're ALL potential murders and should be locked up.

Ever watched Henry Fonda in Twelve Angry Men?  There's a famous scene where he gets the juror who cast the last 'guilty' vote (Lee J. Cobb) to shout 'I'll kill you!' - which invalidates the argument that the defendant 'must be guilty' because he was overheard shouting the same thing to the victim.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Chris Brady

Quote from: Torch on May 10, 2012, 04:41:22 PM
From a legal standpoint, only actions are considered criminal acts and can be prosecuted. One can think whatever he or she likes, one just cannot act on it (or say it out loud, which could be considered a threat if it includes immediate or pending physical harm).

I don't know of anyone who truly believes that thoughtcrimes should be prosecuted, other than the Thought Police in Orwell's 1984.

Thing is, of late, we've seen cases where they are trying to equate thought with action.  Especially when it comes to 'child porn'.  Fantasizing and acting are two different things.  We North Americans have become way too reactionary at this point.
My O&Os Peruse at your doom.

So I make a A&A thread but do I put it here?  No.  Of course not.

Also, I now come with Kung-Fu Blog action.  Here:  Where I talk about comics and all sorts of gaming

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: Torch on May 10, 2012, 05:12:44 PM
Oh, I wouldn't be surprised if they might whisper it in certain circles, but to say it out loud with firm conviction in a public forum?

Sheer political suicide.

Never underestimate a person running for office..there will ALWAYS be at least one who will say it. Particularly if they think they are the sole 'moral' authority in existence.

Chris Brady

Just recently, Joe Biden, the current U.S. VP pretty much endorsed gay marriage, and the Democrats have been scrambling to show solidarity.

HOWEVER: There's already a thread on that topic, go discuss it there.
My O&Os Peruse at your doom.

So I make a A&A thread but do I put it here?  No.  Of course not.

Also, I now come with Kung-Fu Blog action.  Here:  Where I talk about comics and all sorts of gaming

Sabby

Uhg, so many times I'll be browsing Rule34 and BAM lolicon, BAM snuff, BAM shotacon. And I don't mean the 'is it, isn't it?' kind of loli, I mean unmistakable pre-school age characters drawn in explicit sexual acts. Did I look for it? No :/ Does that matter to my Government? Nope. And ya know what? That scares me.

kylie

      Well I don't approve of prosecuting people for possessing porn in general.  (Though I might be more concerned about how exactly one defines "child" and a whole process beyond that.)  Beyond that, it's a bit of a stretch to assume that people are monitoring any and every file on their computers these days.  We have spam galore, ads wired in behind web pages we thought were safe enough (some in pop-ups we never really look at), installations dropping new search engines or trojans on us...  People also pull pranks on each other by sending embarrassing things, or one person says "kink" or "art" and another says "porn."

      Then there is software that captures "every image on this page" when we didn't quite bother to look at all 500 thumbs/links at all.  How exactly is a state government going to establish who intentionally obtained all this stuff?  Are they going to run a trace on individual files and do some psychoanalytic profiling on top of that to explain their reasoning?  Even if you are the only one with access to the site, it's not as if these are all packets of white powder that someone on site necessarily planned for and moved in physically.
     

OldSchoolGamer

I think governments at all levels have way too much time on their hands and too much money.  The biggest sexual predator in America is the government--look at how high a percentage of our population is incarcerated and having their asses raped with the blessing of the State.

Don't get me wrong.  I have no problem with genuine sexual predators--grown people who engage in sex acts with pre-pubescent children, with or without cameras rolling--getting tossed into the piranha tank.  And people who knowingly and willfully purchase child porn (thereby providing financial support for the abuse of children) ought to suffer some serious consequences too. 

But I do not believe that mere possession of things like narcotics, kiddie porn, etc. should have the dire consequences it does in most places.  Criminalizing simple possession of Bad Things gives the government way too many excuses to pry and barge into peoples' lives.  We also are incarcerating way too many people.  Somehow, every other nation in the industrialized world manages to function--and often with lower crime rates, sometimes much lower, than the United States without locking so damn many people up.  We need to study what they do and adapt and implement it here.  Beyond justice, it's a matter of simple economics: we can't afford the prison system, not in the long run.

Chris Brady

Quote from: Sabby on May 11, 2012, 03:55:50 PM
Uhg, so many times I'll be browsing Rule34 and BAM lolicon, BAM snuff, BAM shotacon. And I don't mean the 'is it, isn't it?' kind of loli, I mean unmistakable pre-school age characters drawn in explicit sexual acts. Did I look for it? No :/ Does that matter to my Government? Nope. And ya know what? That scares me.

Actually, it matters enough to the Australian Gov. that the banned any Porn Star with an A-cup chest.  Seriously.
My O&Os Peruse at your doom.

So I make a A&A thread but do I put it here?  No.  Of course not.

Also, I now come with Kung-Fu Blog action.  Here:  Where I talk about comics and all sorts of gaming

Silk

Quote from: Chris Brady on May 13, 2012, 04:56:53 PM
Actually, it matters enough to the Australian Gov. that the banned any Porn Star with an A-cup chest.  Seriously.

True, the australian government is pretty much the example of a "think of the children" government.

Chris Brady

I'm more of a leg man (Well hips and ass too, but mostly legs) but I appreciate a good package all round, even if she's not a B-cup.  So this Australian ruling is sad to me, as an observer.

On topic:  As I stated, I approve of this ruling because it allows for more investigation, instead of a reactionary automatic assumption of guilt.
My O&Os Peruse at your doom.

So I make a A&A thread but do I put it here?  No.  Of course not.

Also, I now come with Kung-Fu Blog action.  Here:  Where I talk about comics and all sorts of gaming

OldSchoolGamer

Quote from: Chris Brady on May 13, 2012, 04:56:53 PM
Actually, it matters enough to the Australian Gov. that the banned any Porn Star with an A-cup chest.  Seriously.

I'd love to see the money trail on that one...how many people are getting paid how much money solely to ensure that porn stars have sufficiently large tits.

"Close enough for government work" takes on a whole new meaning here...

Oniya

Quote from: OldSchoolGamer on May 15, 2012, 10:10:30 PM
I'd love to see the money trail on that one...how many people are getting paid how much money solely to ensure that porn stars have sufficiently large tits.

"Close enough for government work" takes on a whole new meaning here...

It's research, I tell you!
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

OldSchoolGamer


TheGlyphstone


Sabby

Nonono, I mean it doesn't matter that I wasn't looking for it >.< try explaining to a politician whose never used the internet in his life that 'you just find sick shit if you surf long enough' and then try to convince them not to crack down.

Oniya

Quote from: Sabby on May 16, 2012, 02:15:42 PM
Nonono, I mean it doesn't matter that I wasn't looking for it >.< try explaining to a politician whose never used the internet in his life that 'you just find sick shit if you surf long enough' and then try to convince them not to crack down.

It's especially true when you're looking through Rule 34 stuff.  Some of the big image sites have the thumbnails all on one page, and you can be searching for Booth/Bones in the upper part of the page when a Stewie/Lois shows up halfway down the scroll-bar.  The image hasn't even hit your retinas, but your computer has 'evidence' of kiddie porn.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Missy

Not 100% sure what to think of this one.

Seems a bit wonko . . . basically if I look at an image I'm innocent, but if I know there's a browser cache I'm guilty??? So basically we're criminalizing techies and nerds?

Looks like something which needs to be addressed properly.


In any case I'm not really sure about the viewing thing. I understand the implications with the 'unintentional viewing' but what if your the type of creep who intentionally legally views child porn? Now you can get away with looking at child porn as long as you don't download it or know your browser has a cache. Seems a bit off to me.

Again though I can see how's it's a bit challenging since I scrolled down to find the kids off the incredibles once. Plus with many search engines you may click a link and find that link isn't what you were looking for. I guess it's a tough one to work out. I'd say it should be more a question of whether a person was actually looking for such to begin with and his or her reaction after finding it by accident.