You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 07, 2016, 10:04:01 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: So in New York it's apparently legal to VIEW Child Porn, but not POSSESS it.  (Read 2099 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Chris BradyTopic starter

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.

Offline 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.

Offline Chris BradyTopic starter

Especially since emotion rather than reason tends to rule here.

Sadly, accidents happen, and people like porn.

Offline Callie Del Noire

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.

Offline Chris BradyTopic starter

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.

Offline Torch

  • Pay no attention to the woman behind the curtain/Trieste's sarcasm buddy
  • Suspended
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2009
  • Location: USA
  • Gender: Female
  • "Soul meets soul on lovers' lips." P.B. Shelley
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
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.

Offline Callie Del Noire

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.

Offline Torch

  • Pay no attention to the woman behind the curtain/Trieste's sarcasm buddy
  • Suspended
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2009
  • Location: USA
  • Gender: Female
  • "Soul meets soul on lovers' lips." P.B. Shelley
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
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.

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
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.

Offline Chris BradyTopic starter

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.

Offline Callie Del Noire

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.

Offline Chris BradyTopic starter

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.

Offline 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.

Offline kylie

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future.
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
      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.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2012, 05:06:57 AM by kylie »

Offline 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.

Offline Chris BradyTopic starter

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.

Online Silk

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.

Offline Chris BradyTopic starter

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.

Offline OldSchoolGamer

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...

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
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!

Offline OldSchoolGamer

It's research, I tell you!

"I'm here from the Bureau of Tit Inspection..."

Online TheGlyphstone

FBI. It stands for Female Body Inspector...

Offline 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.

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
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.

Offline 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.