alright dyl, i'll try to be nice here. but basically, you failed at reading. the yahoo link earlier said this exactly:
The court said it must be up to the legislature, not the courts, to determine what the appropriate response should be to those viewing images of child pornography without actually storing them. Currently, New York's legislature has no laws deeming such action criminal.
As The Atlantic Wire notes, under current New York law, "it is illegal to create, possess, distribute, promote or facilitate child pornography." But that leaves out one critical distinction, as Judge Ciparick stated in the court's decision.
"[S]ome 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."
which is 100% reasonable.
you should be HAPPY this ruling exists because it says that there are judges who actively know the difference between viewing something and possessing it. the most basic of all examples is something like youtube.
say you find a link to a song you like on youtube. you didn't upload it, you aren't sharing it or doing anything to promote it beyond just watching it. you do not, ever, have possession of it. it's the same deal here. if you DO save it, you'll have a problem with the state law. intentional viewing has problems with some federal laws too, but that's obviously a tricky matter. having an active choice made, like saving it, suggests more to it. the law is not written to say that viewership makes you a crime - it's not even mentioned. therefore, it's not illegal. if the legislature wants to make it illegal it's their choice to make, not the judge's. which is, quite literally, the way our system usually work. EXPANDING the definition causes much more trouble and much bigger problems. laws should be tailor made to the issue, and if the law does not exist on viewing then the act itself is not illegal - that is what the judge said, did, and left it up to the legislature to resolve. which is 100% the right call to make.
so really, new york superior state is the answer. because we have judges that can tell you the difference of possession and viewing as well as judges who shut down patent trolls.
--
The King Wang.
Listen up Urinal Cake. I already have something that tells me if I'm too drunk when I pee on it: My friends. - Colbert.