Basically, looking at child porn isn't a crime. Saving it is. Helpful if your browsing 4chan, but like the article says, it's a pretty huge loophole and really doesn't differ from the way most people view NORMAL porn.
If this spreads, it might inspire authorities to put more effort into stopping the creation and distribution of the stuff instead of busting the creeps that consume it.
-- I like how each new topic you make reveals such varied facets of your idiocy. - foolmo [NO BARKLEY NO PEACE]
Hm... I dunno. This seems like it might actually be a loophole allowing for support of CP makers, but of course it doesn't exempt the makers themselves, so... hm... I'm certainly not gonna get outraged over it. I guess the point is that seeing something is not classifiable as criminal no matter what it is.
--
"God Hand is the ultimate expression of the joy of humanity, specifically the punching part of the joy of humanity."-Shigeru Miyamoto
"Merely viewing Web images of child pornography does not, absent other proof, constitute either possession or procurement within the meaning of our Penal Law,"
But "merely viewing" an image involves downloading it to main memory and most likely saving it to a cache, so...
"And now, in New York State at least, caching doesn't count as a download"
Oh.... kay?
-- _foolmo_ 'You are obviously intelligent and insightful' - Sir Chris about me
It is too big a loophole, though. Seems like it'd be easy to view CP and even "pay" for it through ad revenue etc as long as you don't actively save it... Streaming? Image hosting sites? I'm not sure the judge totally gets these concepts.
--
"God Hand is the ultimate expression of the joy of humanity, specifically the punching part of the joy of humanity."-Shigeru Miyamoto
If you can create hate crime legislation, which judges intent, then you can surely create legislation that would catch people who deliberately seek out and view child porn.
From: Uglyface2 | #012 If you can create hate crime legislation, which judges intent, then you can surely create legislation that would catch people who deliberately seek out and view child porn.
Hate crimes are additional charges that intensify actual crimes, you know. You can't arrest someone just for being hateful.
--
Ladders are a socially-acceptable way to reach your goals.
From: DeepsPraw | #015 Is Japanese law really that loose? I don't think it is.
Even so, explicitly requesting the CP and paying for it would still be illegal.
Yeah. But non-pay streaming sites would be a bit questionable under this ruling. (No idea about Japanese law except that they certainly have laws against CP.)
--
Ladders are a socially-acceptable way to reach your goals.
Say I'm posting in this topic right now. And somebody posts a jpeg about the Avengers or something. I click it, WHOAMG IT'S CHILD PORN
I have viewed it and it's now cached in my browser.
Am I guilty of criminally possessing child porn?
That judge says no, and that's all he seems to be saying here.
As far as I can tell, the guy isn't getting away, he still has actually saved pictures and messages incriminating him, and the judge isn't excusing any of that. It's just one of the charges related to viewing the pictures and them getting cached.
--
The batman villians all seem to be one big joke that batman refuses to laugh at - SantaRPG
Say I'm posting in this topic right now. And somebody posts a jpeg about the Avengers or something. I click it, WHOAMG IT'S CHILD PORN
I have viewed it and it's now cached in my browser.
Am I guilty of criminally possessing child porn?
That judge says no, and that's all he seems to be saying here.
As far as I can tell, the guy isn't getting away, he still has actually saved pictures and messages incriminating him, and the judge isn't excusing any of that. It's just one of the charges related to viewing the pictures and them getting cached.
That's fine. The problem is where someone can go to a CP site, look at stuff, and still be considered not breaking the law just so long as they don't download anything. The law may be well meaning, but it is incompetent.
An incompetent law is little different from an unjust law.
--
http://img.imgcake.com/AlecTrevylan006/darkyounglinkshieldpngyg.png Sleep? F*** sleep, Toonami is on!!- GenesisSaga
Dark Young Link posted... The problem is where someone can go to a CP site, look at stuff, and still be considered not breaking the law just so long as they don't download anything. The law may be well meaning, but it is incompetent.
Again, this isn't a law. It's the interpretation of existing laws by a judge. If they can prove that someone goes to a CP site intentionally, then they can still prosecute them.
But of course the sensationalist media has to go "ALL KIDDIE PORN IS LEGAL" and make a big fuss out of it. The result of this is that that Congress is going to feel pressured to pass more draconian internet legislature like SOPA.
-- oh yeah. i am a dog. i smoke cigarettes and vote democratic because i am classy - the dog http://i.imgur.com/x4Tma.jpg
Again, this isn't a law. It's the interpretation of existing laws by a judge. If they can prove that someone goes to a CP site intentionally, then they can still prosecute them.
But of course the sensationalist media has to go "ALL KIDDIE PORN IS LEGAL" and make a big fuss out of it. The result of this is that that Congress is going to feel pressured to pass more draconian internet legislature like SOPA.
Ah.... so it's like that. Though to be fair this news is very poorly timed with Amendment One. Or was that the point?
SantaRPG posted... with tti you wouldn't even need to click it! I could post child porn in this topic and all of you (except for the lucky people in new york) would be commiting the crime, punishable by a minimum of 2 years time. This has happened before, and without a law like this it will happen again.
In fact, there was a poster on CE who posted nudes of herself and called the police on the people she knew who clicked on the topic, so don't say it can't happen.
That seems hard to believe. And did anyone actually get arrested in the CE topic? When was that? o.o
--
http://img.imgcake.com/AlecTrevylan006/darkyounglinkshieldpngyg.png Sleep? F*** sleep, Toonami is on!!- GenesisSaga
Seriously though, this isn't legalization, it's them realizing that either the current laws don't cut it. I'm fairly sure the judge specifically said the legislative branch should clarify and eliminate this as a loophole ASAP as well.
--
Sig space for rent. Got something you'd like to see spread around? Give me a shout out, I'll probably sig it.
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.