Viewing Child Porn now Legal in New York

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Law enforcement should be focused on people who assault minors, or sexually exploit minors for financial gain.

The idea of going after the consumers has nothing to do with improving justice, it's just a way for the law enforcement industry to expand itself and ask for more funding. It's just like the way that the California police unions are one of the primary organizations that push for laws punishing petty drug offenders.

Dafuq did I just read?

OT: I hope this is a joke and if it isn't, I just hope it doesn't spread to other states otherwise the whole world will not be safe for anyone... not even your children...

they could not have worded that anymore wrong than they possibly did.

"how about, the viewing of child porn on the web in itself is not necessarily a crime unless sought after or saved, how ever it is the viewers responsibility to report this to the authorities, failure to do so can be considered a criminal offense, you sick bastard."

Matthew94:

Thomas Guy:

poiumty:

What about hearing child porn? What if I get sexually aroused by the pained screams of little children? Aren't I a disgusting criminal then?

Yes, yes you are.

I hope that was sarcasm. Getting aroused, for whatever reason, cannot be a criminal act.

Indeed. I've been aroused in situations where absolutely nothing arousing was happening. Sometimes, shit just happens and you randomly get erect.

And again our public servants display their ignorance. You cannot view anything from the World Wide Web without electronically transferring it to your computer, or in other words, "downloading".

Edit: found where the judges in fact knew about this and decided that if the defendent did not "know about the cache" then they were not guilty. Because deliberately clicking labeled links and outright pictures indicating the content in question somehow does not constitute the intent to possess the content.

By comparison, asking an undercover police officer if you can buy drugs or if they will commit a murder for you IS sufficient evidence to arrest and convict once your intent has been established by the transfer of money.

"This makes sense for the few times when innocent people might accidentally stumble upon kiddie porn while browsing for other stuff"

This is the purpose of the ruling, and as rulings go, this makes sense. You cannot have overarching laws like those in place, where someone can legally be put in prison for a crime without intent. The laws before were simply too vague before. This cleans things up.

evilneko:

Das Boot:

evilneko:
AFAIK drawn/CG child porn isn't actually illegal in the US. Also did you edit in the quote from me? I didn't get a notification. >.>

That is a misconception. It actually is illegal in the US.

This would appear to be correct. 18 USC sec 1466A (enacted 2003 under Shrub in the PROTECT Act) does indeed appear to make, for example, lolicon hentai illegal to produce, possess, distribute, or receive. According to wiki, it's been tested in court and has resulted in convictions.

In which case gelbooru better not be hosted in the US. (heck, even safebooru might have problems)

And also the scanlation group SaHa better hope that a judge can see the literary value of Kodomo no Jikan. >.>

It's a weird law isn't it? As pointed out,

BloatedGuppy:

When I think of child pornography, I think of films/pictures where a child was actually abused to create them, not hand-drawn art or stories or adult actors playing a role. Yes, you've seen people fake being murdered in action films, but it's unlikely you've watched actual snuff films.

It's reasonable to assume that seeing a film of an actor being killed does not imply endorsement of murder, but try and argue this applies to lolicon, where there are no victims, and watch the outcry of even thinking such a thing. People and their inconsistent logics when sex and/or children are involved...

OT: I think this isn't that bad. I mean, no matter how good your lawyer is, if you are frequently watching child pornography, even without possessing it, a judge will just 'Bitch Please' you. It's a law that seems to be protect innocent people while not compromising against guilty parties.

I wish they would work out the classifications for child porn.

You could get sent to jail for having pictures of your 17 year old girlfriend, at the age of 18.

Jegsimmons:
they could not have worded that anymore wrong than they possibly did.

"how about, the viewing of child porn on the web in itself is not necessarily a crime unless sought after or saved, how ever it is the viewers responsibility to report this to the authorities, failure to do so can be considered a criminal offense, you sick bastard."

^^ this too.

This is a complex issue, and I'd have to think over my own opinions for a looonnng time before I'd feel comfortable putting them in writing. But I did see a fascinating take from someone else that I think everyone should read:

I have seen quite a bit of porn, OP. I have seen the images that lurk in the hearts of men and women. I have talked with strangers about things they have never even told their wives or boyfriends. And yet the most heartbreaking thing time after time is to see the dissonance that exists between the person they really are and who they have to pretend to be. Pedophiles; they are many more than you know and a good majority would never lift a finger to hurt a child. Some even choosing to undertake extreme measures to prevent doing so. Zoophiles; some of whom have experienced deeper and more meaningful relationships with animals than the rest of us may ever experience in our lifetime, yet they may never be happy in society the way that most of us can easily be. Self-mutilators; some of whom can't reach any form of sexual gratification without placing their lives or health in extreme danger. Is it fair that some of us get to masturbate to pictures of boobs and roll over to sleep, while others stay up all night, ostracized by implications and improbability of their sexuality?

The world can be a large and uncaring place. If a small community board somewhere on the internet allows people to come together and share with others like them in an open and judgement free environment, then I say let them. They have it hard enough as it is.

Original discussion.

Now if only they could get around to not makin it illegal to read lolicon or anythin vaguely sexual involvin anyone who even looks underage in works of fiction we might make some progress on this front.

Whatever though. Baby steps and all that.

That actually makes sense. Of course this should only be applied to private areas you don't pedophiles watching child porn out in public.

Readial:
Dafuq did I just read?

OT: I hope this is a joke and if it isn't, I just hope it doesn't spread to other states otherwise the whole world will not be safe for anyone... not even your children...

What this does is protect those who, for example, forget to add "-loli" to their search on gelbooru. (and even adding that might not prevent a character that is or appears underage from showing up, seeing as tags are added by the community)

Should checking out Li Meifon really be a crime? (not that a pedophile would be interested in her anyway, they'd have to be also an ephebophile and into ridiculous boobs...) The way the law's worded, it is. In-universe Meifon's underage, after all. :p

Meanwhile, there are parts of America where loli porn is illegal.

Qitz:

"Merely viewing Web images of child pornography does not, absent other proof, constitute either possession or procurement within the meaning of our Penal Law," Senior Judge Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick wrote for a majority of four of the six judges.

"Rather, some 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."

A person can view hundreds of these images, or watch hours of real-time videos of children subjected to sexual encounters, and as long as those images are not downloaded, printed or further distributed, such conduct is not proscribed.

It isn't made legal, as Gizmodo suggests, it's just not illegal to look at pics and such. It's only illegal if you're found to be in direct possession of it.

Kind of makes sense, watching it isn't as big of a problem as finding the people who actually make the stuff and cause direct damage to the children doing it. Can see it being used as a way to help persuade people to tell where they say said content.

Should be interesting to see how it all plays out.

actually, yea, something along the lines of what you said.

A story ran a while back of a IT guy repairing someones computer when he came across dozens of pictures and videos on the guys computer.

However, he was in possession of the computer at the time, and even though he turned it over to police he was also charged with possessing child pornography.

At least this lets people who see it report it without fear of being arrested..... if you live in New York at least.

Veret:
This is a complex issue, and I'd have to think over my own opinions for a looonnng time before I'd feel comfortable putting them in writing. But I did see a fascinating take from someone else that I think everyone should read:

I have seen quite a bit of porn, OP. I have seen the images that lurk in the hearts of men and women. I have talked with strangers about things they have never even told their wives or boyfriends. And yet the most heartbreaking thing time after time is to see the dissonance that exists between the person they really are and who they have to pretend to be. Pedophiles; they are many more than you know and a good majority would never lift a finger to hurt a child. Some even choosing to undertake extreme measures to prevent doing so. Zoophiles; some of whom have experienced deeper and more meaningful relationships with animals than the rest of us may ever experience in our lifetime, yet they may never be happy in society the way that most of us can easily be. Self-mutilators; some of whom can't reach any form of sexual gratification without placing their lives or health in extreme danger. Is it fair that some of us get to masturbate to pictures of boobs and roll over to sleep, while others stay up all night, ostracized by implications and improbability of their sexuality?

The world can be a large and uncaring place. If a small community board somewhere on the internet allows people to come together and share with others like them in an open and judgement free environment, then I say let them. They have it hard enough as it is.

Original discussion.

until you realize that children really dont know what consent really means, or the long term effects of being molested or raped as a child can do to a person.

Personally, if its drawn, cartoon, or anime, then it really shouldn't matter, it isn't a real person.

The real thing is what needs to be taken from the internet.

Kalezian:
However, he was in possession of the computer at the time, and even though he turned it over to police he was also charged with possessing child pornography.

Thank god they put a stop to that guy. Who knows whose computer he might've tried to fix next. Maybe YOUR computer.

Think about it! Scary.

BloatedGuppy:

Kalezian:
However, he was in possession of the computer at the time, and even though he turned it over to police he was also charged with possessing child pornography.

Thank god they put a stop to that guy. Who knows whose computer he might've tried to fix next. Maybe YOUR computer.

Think about it! Scary.

I know, good thing I use maxmyspeed.com!

I mean, just got a brand new computer and evidently I have 600 new viruses, thankfully they will get rid of them for only $200!

I have to admit I don't understand this whole situation.
We live in a society that is meant to be understanding of psychological problems, and yet people treat pedophiles, as if they were a Christian extremist talking to a homosexual.
Doesn't there need to be some kind of solution that doesn't harm anyone (e.g. cartoons) to ensure that no one actually does hurt anyone due to their perversion?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to defend child porn, or anything that causes children harm like that, just that people should stop treating pedophiles like they're the devil, and that they should be helped, not shunned.
Face it, it isn't their fault that they are the way they are.

Kalezian:
I know, good thing I use maxmyspeed.com!

I mean, just got a brand new computer and evidently I have 600 new viruses, thankfully they will get rid of them for only $200!

That's an amazing deal. And they'll max my speed too? Where can I send my credit card information?!

A victory for reason, I think. There have been quite a few cases of people innocently stumbling upon child porn and going to jail for it. That, and I don't think it's reasonable or right to prosecute people for viewing something, no matter how obscene its content. Should someone go to prison for visiting a physical gallery of child pornography? Should people with a photographic memory be jailed everytime they visualise an obscene picture? The answer to me is no, it can't be a crime to perceive. The line stops at possession of an illicit image saved to a storage device where it can be accessed again later. It may create loopholes for paedophiles who know how to access their cache images, but the alternative is much worse.

Kalezian:
until you realize that children really dont know what consent really means, or the long term effects of being molested or raped as a child can do to a person.

I don't think I've ever seen somebody arguing with that. The issue here is that, in some places, it's also illegal to view the "harmless" stuff that you described. True, it's skeezy, and it may or may not promote a subculture of child molestation (which we can all agree is not okay). On the other hand, abolishing child porn won't make pedophiles stop existing; it will just mean they have to go out an molest actual children to get their rocks off. If regular porn were outlawed, do you think rapes would go up?

I honestly don't know. Like I said, I don't have answers, just uncomfortable questions.

so i can save cheese pizza and captain picards pics now? Bad puns aside... well this should change things in law and order svu.

templar1138a:
Interesting thing to note: It's not illegal to view child porn, but it IS illegal to possess it. Know what counts as possessing it? Posting it online for other people to view.

It wouldn't matter if are viewing x material or not your computer is like a tape recorder saving everything you view as cookies or other files. So even if you don't click right, save as there is still a file for it on your computer.

I wonder if they understand how computers work.

Cecilthedarkknight_234:
so i can save cheese pizza and captain picards pics now? Bad puns aside... well this should change things in law and order svu.

templar1138a:
Interesting thing to note: It's not illegal to view child porn, but it IS illegal to possess it. Know what counts as possessing it? Posting it online for other people to view.

It wouldn't matter if are viewing x material or not your computer is like a tape recorder saving everything you view as cookies or other files. So even if you don't click right, save as there is still a file for it on your computer.

You forget about clearing browser history and "Porn mode."

templar1138a:

Cecilthedarkknight_234:
so i can save cheese pizza and captain picards pics now? Bad puns aside... well this should change things in law and order svu.

templar1138a:
Interesting thing to note: It's not illegal to view child porn, but it IS illegal to possess it. Know what counts as possessing it? Posting it online for other people to view.

It wouldn't matter if are viewing x material or not your computer is like a tape recorder saving everything you view as cookies or other files. So even if you don't click right, save as there is still a file for it on your computer.

You forget about clearing browser history and "Porn mode."

as a computer tech I can still dig up those files unless you have a hard-scrubber software to clear your cache, cookies or other information dumps that people don't look into.

"The court upheld the other counts against Kent, an assistant professor of public administration at Marist College in Poughkeepsie, N.Y."

"Kent's convictions on the other counts rested on other evidence, including a folder on his machine that stored about 13,000 saved images of girls whom investigators estimated to be 8 or 9 years old and four messages to an unidentified third party discussing a research project into the regulation of child pornography."

JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS, PEOPLE OF THE INTERNET.

He is still going to prison, albeit not for very long, but he will still serve jailtime for viewing the images. However, as he technically did not download them knowingly, he did not deliberately procure the images and cannot be done for doing so.

Although I am unsure if this would stand up in the UK, considering ignorance of committing a crime does not make you innocent of committing said crime. It is a confusing state of affairs.

However, considering he sent several emails discussing a research project into the regulation of child pornography, he might not be the scumbag it is instantly being assumed that he is.

Asuka Soryu:
Really, I can't see the problem with it. The problem is the people who make child pornography and the molesters, if the only thing you do is look at the stuff and that's it, then you really shouldn't be judged as a criminal.

Ah, you see, this is a real problem.

You are looking at images of child abuse. By all accounts, this makes you complicit in the abuse if you make no attempt to inform someone of the abuse being carried out. You are directly handing money over to people who commit acts of child abuse which means you most certainly should be judged to be a criminal. Finally, if the image you are looking at is an image of a sexual interaction with a child, rather than simply an image of said child nude, then you are looking at rape. By all accounts.

Someone who deliberately obtains images of rape or abuse is scum. There is no way that said image can be obtained without abuse coming to a child down the line.

Oh, Lookie, I just contradicted myself. This certainly is an interesting issue.

And whilst many people are pointing out that it is hard to browse the internet without coming across rather horrific things... Although I admit this is the case (Clicking on a NSFL issue on /r/wtf has left me with a memory that I cannot unsee.) there is a difference between that and coming across a hell of a lot of CP.

I think it really depends about... quantity.

Say, if you went through someones cache and browsing history and it turns out they viewed a single picture in which there was someone under the age of consent engaged in a sexual act or wearing absolutely nothing (Carefully avoiding the technically legal act of viewing a picture of an underage person as long as no sex organs are involved, despite many of said pictures being utterly questionable) then ignorance could be used as a defence.

But if it turned out there were dozens, hundreds, thousands of said images? I think it would be safe to say that they are not innocent of deliberately seeking out pictures of child abuse. Unless, naturally, these pictures came up following said person informing the police that the website they thought was safe was actually hosting pictures of child pornography, hidden among legal pictures...

*sigh*

I do not exactly have a law degree and even I can see the problems with regulating the internet. Laws need to be changed but followed... With discretion (Much like age of consent laws within the UK. Sleeping with someone under the age of 16 = wrong in the eyes of the law, yet discretion is used by the police/parents etc to not end up sending lots of people off to jail who, quite frankly, do not deserve it. In some cases. *sigh*)

Well, that is my collection of shaky views on the matter.

Kalezian:

actually, yea, something along the lines of what you said.

A story ran a while back of a IT guy repairing someones computer when he came across dozens of pictures and videos on the guys computer.

However, he was in possession of the computer at the time, and even though he turned it over to police he was also charged with possessing child pornography.

At least this lets people who see it report it without fear of being arrested..... if you live in New York at least.

I seem to remember hearing something like that. I don't remember what came of it. A good lawyer should've been able to get him off the hook though. Hmmm, google time.

Personally, if its drawn, cartoon, or anime, then it really shouldn't matter, it isn't a real person.

I'll drink to that.

Preliminary results of searching: Not the same case but a similarly innocent user, and even Fox News sees the absurdity of it! And this poor kid whose only crime was getting a virus is now a sex offender? Yeah, shit needs to change. 2007 story so hopefully something has...

DigitalAtlas:
**** my state. I'm heading north to Maine

No! Don't do it! You'll be killed by a really boring and overwritten monster/madman with more plotholes then Battlefield Earth! Along with having to listen to a lame misunderstood writer and his boring cast of friends who have all seen the monster/madman but can't tell a soul because of the reason!

Stephen King land! Land of Lame and Perpetual Crappy Stories!

I actually agree wholeheartedly with making it not illegal to view.

Much like in Japan, where violent rape is at a lower rate now that violent rape porn is more-easily accessible, I think that kiddy-diddling will lower if pedophiles are able to view material from the comfort of their mothers' basements rather than trying to find it in the real world over risking years of imprisonment for looking at some pixels.

It's not like a pedophile or ephebophile actually CHOOSES to be attracted to younger kids, after all, and punishing them for NOT harming someone is a retarded thing to do.

That said, naturally, I wish that people would only be attracted to people their own age, but I realize that this isn't how human brains work.

Solution: Move all FBI child-pornography checkers to New York. Sure, some might slip the net due to this law, but I bet anything you'd catch a huge portion of them on other charges.

RazadaMk2:

You are looking at images of child abuse. By all accounts, this makes you complicit in the abuse if you make no attempt to inform someone of the abuse being carried out. You are directly handing money over to people who commit acts of child abuse which means you most certainly should be judged to be a criminal. Finally, if the image you are looking at is an image of a sexual interaction with a child, rather than simply an image of said child nude, then you are looking at rape. By all accounts.

Someone who deliberately obtains images of rape or abuse is scum. There is no way that said image can be obtained without abuse coming to a child down the line.

Oh, Lookie, I just contradicted myself. This certainly is an interesting issue.

And whilst many people are pointing out that it is hard to browse the internet without coming across rather horrific things... Although I admit this is the case (Clicking on a NSFL issue on /r/wtf has left me with a memory that I cannot unsee.) there is a difference between that and coming across a hell of a lot of CP.

I think it really depends about... quantity.

Say, if you went through someones cache and browsing history and it turns out they viewed a single picture in which there was someone under the age of consent engaged in a sexual act or wearing absolutely nothing (Carefully avoiding the technically legal act of viewing a picture of an underage person as long as no sex organs are involved, despite many of said pictures being utterly questionable) then ignorance could be used as a defence.

But if it turned out there were dozens, hundreds, thousands of said images? I think it would be safe to say that they are not innocent of deliberately seeking out pictures of child abuse. Unless, naturally, these pictures came up following said person informing the police that the website they thought was safe was actually hosting pictures of child pornography, hidden among legal pictures...

Couple of issues with your statement:

1) How in the hell does viewing some images equate to "DIRECTLY HANDING money over to people who commit acts of child abuse"?

On an imageboard, the uploaders don't get any compensation. No money is exchanged. Your statement would only work on sites where the pedos are also in control of the domain.

2) Equating the viewing of a crime to enabling a crime is, I feel, incorrect. I've got a plethora of gore on my harddrive, including beheadings and the like, some of which are most-likely still unpunished. There's no obligation for me to show these to the police, since I got them online from a random imageboard and have not the slightest clue about what country the crime happened in, so why should I be legally held to hand evidence of crimes against children to the police?

Plus, this says nothing of the images that girls willingly make of themselves and post online, and the police that have arrested and charged the girls themselves for possession/distribution of child pornography, and which doesn't fit under your proposed criteria also.

Qitz:

"Merely viewing Web images of child pornography does not, absent other proof, constitute either possession or procurement within the meaning of our Penal Law," Senior Judge Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick wrote for a majority of four of the six judges.

"Rather, some 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."

A person can view hundreds of these images, or watch hours of real-time videos of children subjected to sexual encounters, and as long as those images are not downloaded, printed or further distributed, such conduct is not proscribed.

It isn't made legal, as Gizmodo suggests, it's just not illegal to look at pics and such. It's only illegal if you're found to be in direct possession of it.

Kind of makes sense, watching it isn't as big of a problem as finding the people who actually make the stuff and cause direct damage to the children doing it. Can see it being used as a way to help persuade people to tell where they say said content.

Should be interesting to see how it all plays out.

I kind of agree with you here. But I think the objective should be to continually vilify the entire situation, we're not trying to encourage this sort of behaviour, we're trying to stop it, or at least stem the tide. You're never going to be able to stop it, but doing this seems more like encouragement than anything else, once it's on the internet does that mean the person who made it can delete it off his computer, then say he stumbled across it? The US congress really should step in here, but the best I can see is the republicans catching wind of it and accusing all democrats of being child porn pervaders.

Readial:
Dafuq did I just read?

OT: I hope this is a joke and if it isn't, I just hope it doesn't spread to other states otherwise the whole world will not be safe for anyone... not even your children...

If you want to play devils advocate shit would probably be better.

I think I read that child abuse rates have decreased since the internet has come around.

http://esciencenews.com/articles/2010/11/30/legalizing.child.pornography.linked.lower.rates.child.sex.abuse

This is a similar article.

Now don't take this as me saying it should be legalised everywhere but don't assume that this will lead to an increase in abuse.

SirBryghtside:

Asuka Soryu:
Really, I can't see the problem with it. The problem is the people who make child pornography and the molesters, if the only thing you do is look at the stuff and that's it, then you really shouldn't be judged as a criminal.

The idea is that by viewing the stuff, you are benefiting the creators - which is, in pretty much every case, absolutely true. I agree that there's nothing inherently wrong with paedophiles unless they... practice, but there are a lot of things wrong with child pornography. The other part is regarding how the child will be a real-life person, and so naked pictures of them cannot be on the internet, because they can't consent.

How do you benefit the creators?

People say that but never back it up, the creators aren't using adsense and getting revenue from that.

RazadaMk2:

Ah, you see, this is a real problem.

You are looking at images of child abuse. By all accounts, this makes you complicit in the abuse if you make no attempt to inform someone of the abuse being carried out. You are directly handing money over to people who commit acts of child abuse which means you most certainly should be judged to be a criminal. Finally, if the image you are looking at is an image of a sexual interaction with a child, rather than simply an image of said child nude, then you are looking at rape. By all accounts.

Woah

1. If I saw a video of someone stealing does that make me complicit in their crime?

2. How the hell do you hand over cash? They make no money off it.

3. So what if you look at rape? I've seen people on the net be burned to death, it doesn't mean shit.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked