Viewing Child Porn now Legal in New York

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5
 

So, who else is moving to New York?! *Raises hand for high fives* Huh? Huh? Oh *Lowers hand*
Well, I'm going to just ban myself and save the mods the time.

CAPTCHA: Open Season

Thats a worrying omen.

RazadaMk2:
1. Deliberately finding videos or pictures of people who are dead or dying is both illegal in many countries and utterly morally reprehensible.

How is it morally reprehensible? Not searching for the video does not bring people back.

If a human dying is reprehensible then how come hunting videos are common place? Are you suggesting for some irrational reason humans can't be seen dying?

If owning firearms in a country is illegal, does it make it reprehensible to watch FPS Russia or play CoD?

Finally, are you implying that video evidence of certain things happening shouldn't be available to the public? Heck, why can't I know what it looks like to be hit by a .50BMG?

MelasZepheos:
I understand that proxy servers etc make it difficult if not impossible to really track people in this way, and that is one of the things that really worries me about proxy servers, but there must be ways to determine whether someone has actually gone searching for child porn or not.

The problem is that if "those ways" become common:

- They would be VERY unconstitutional, since you'd have to break into a person's privacy to find what that person is doing with the proxy.
- A lot of countries/powerful companies would use it to arrest/threaten "whistle-blowers" trying to send evidence to outsiders.

MelasZepheos:
Although I don't think this is quite correct yet, I do think this ruling could be useful.

What is needed is a way to determine if the person went looking for it or whether it happened without their knowledge. Your DNS being hacked and sending you to a child porn site is very different to going on to Google and typing 'Child Pornography.' (I know this isn't quite a perfect analogy but you know what I mean)

I understand that proxy servers etc make it difficult if not impossible to really track people in this way, and that is one of the things that really worries me about proxy servers, but there must be ways to determine whether someone has actually gone searching for child porn or not.

A good example would be going on to this very forum and clicking on a topic under an innocent guise (Talking about... Max Payne 3) and finding the topic full of child porn. THAT is accidental content viewing and one can get arrested for it (Here in the UK) if it's reported. This law hopes to prevent that.

Why should somone else being a sick c**t mean your life has to be ruined?

RazadaMk2:

So! In answer to your first question, yes. watching a crime and not reporting it is being complicit to the committing of said crime.

You really have no idea how utterly ridiculous that is, do you? Seriously, think about that statement for a few minutes. "watching a crime and not reporting it is being complicit." Just think on it for a few minutes, see if you can figure out why it's so absurd.

ElPatron:

The problem is that if "those ways" become common:

- They would be VERY unconstitutional, since you'd have to break into a person's privacy to find what that person is doing with the proxy.
- A lot of countries/powerful companies would use it to arrest/threaten "whistle-blowers" trying to send evidence to outsiders.

They are common and widely used.

Just spend some time on 4chan and before long a thread about Tor and the "deep web" will show up.

With Tor and VPNs it means that most of these people will not be caught easily or at all.

That's the main problem with catching these people, anonymity software is almost too good at this point.

Matthew94:
They are common and widely used.

Just spend some time on 4chan and before long a thread about Tor and the "deep web" will show up.

With Tor and VPNs it means that most of these people will not be caught easily or at all.

That's the main problem with catching these people, anonymity software is almost too good at this point.

I know what TOR is, and I regularly visit /k/ to obtain PDFs.

What I meant was using means to monitor proxy servers. They are unconstitutional.

I like this ruling for one reason and one reason only: It doesn't set a precedent that allows you to be prosecuted for looking at something the courts have deemed over the line.

That kind of shit shouldn't fly, ever.

In my one visit to /b/, I encountered three things that cemented my desire to never, EVER go back:

1. The OP and last five posts of a gore thread
2. The OP and last five posts of a jailbait thread
3. The OP and last five posts of a "masturbation roll" game

Now, am I a criminal for scrolling down the /b/ page and accidentally seeing CP (that was hopefully immediately erased) on the jailbait preview? I hope not. However, had someone accessed my cache in the few seconds it took before the thread was wiped off the page (assuming it wasn't bumped again), that would be "evidence" that I view CP - even though I don't. Isn't that the idea behind the "Viewing Is Not Illegal" ruling?

Like it or not, technically it is the right call to make. If there is no proactive attempt at storing or possessing this content, then you cannot claim it is possessing the content. Doesnt make kiddie porns existence ok, it is just explaining that there is no proactive and affirmative attempt to store that porn for future use.

Ill give you an example of how the "cache" argument does not work.

If you go looking for porn, you find that many times when you click on one porn site, that suggests that if you click this it will take you to whatever the thumbnail describes. The deeper you go looking for porn the more you see that thumbnails do not always link to what they suggest. Thus many times you can click on a thumbnail based on searching for a innocuous term such as "petite" and get thrown to a mass redirection page with hundreds of thumbnails some of which you had absolutely no intention of clicking, but there they are stored in your cache regardless. You have inadvertently stored literally hundreds of non requested images simply by clicking one link. You as a user can never completely predict what content will be on the other side of a link, so you cannot hold someone liable for a webpage displaying content the user did not intentionally try to access.

EDIT: Example clarification

http://www.dogpile.com/search/images?fcoid=417&fcop=topnav&fpid=27&q=cars&ql=

With this link you see roughly 12 images. Those images are redirected downloads of content from their source pages. Meaning when you looked at images of "cars" you downloaded into your cache content from 15 different webpages with one link, not just one specified webpage. It also clarifies where the source thumbnail originates from. Porn sites typically work in the same manner. So for the purposes of the example, say you only wanted to look up actual cars, and references to Disneys film "Cars" were something prohibited. You simply had no way of controlling based on your search criteria what results would come back, and as you see you get an abundance of "Disneys Cars" results stored in your cache because of the search.

Then there is the deep level of porn where you simply have no way of telling any more. Very few porn links actually affirm the actresses age info or attest to her being over age. There are also fetishes that hover around the area, but are so indistinct that its hard to separate them. School girls, Baby sitters, young, ect. All focused around the same fetish type that portray youth, but are just indistinct enough that you cannot 100% tell as a consumer if the actress is under/over the age of 18 or not. So in many of these cases where you can have someone searching for completely legal but borderline tastes, get exposed to unintended underage content without being able to verify or validate if it is underage or not.

So yes, again, regrettable, but a logical stance given the exact circumstances involved.

To all of you New York TERA players, I know this ruling comes as a huge relief. CONGRATULATIONS!!

Well looks like the pedophiles who don't actually harm children are going to have a better life in NY. I'm only glad for them since it's not like they chose to be pedos.

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.

So 75 percent of all comments on this article are debating points based on a misunderstanding?

Matthew94:

RazadaMk2:
snip

Though that was a massive snip, rest assured I read your post.

This argument is getting longer and longer so I'm going to boil it down to the fundamentals.

All I believe when it comes to this matter is that the current law is a good idea as the previous one was too harsh. Even if you accidentally found CP you could be jailed for it, this law ensures a person who saw CP accidentally does not have his life ruined and I am in support of that.

That is all.

They didn't ever jail people who saw an image accidentally.

It was the people with thousands of hits or who had a harddrive full of the stuff that went down. You are protecting that sicko, not the person who accidentally hit something naughty a couple times.

Kendarik:

They didn't ever jail people who saw an image accidentally.

It was the people with thousands of hits or who had a harddrive full of the stuff that went down. You are protecting that sicko, not the person who accidentally hit something naughty a couple times.

http://www.switched.com/2009/12/07/accidental-child-porn-download-leads-to-jail-time/

And this isn't the only story, there are many more.

The law is there to stop things like this happening. I get this person downloaded it technically but they are both accidental and that is the reasoning behind this law.

evilneko:

RazadaMk2:

So! In answer to your first question, yes. watching a crime and not reporting it is being complicit to the committing of said crime.

You really have no idea how utterly ridiculous that is, do you? Seriously, think about that statement for a few minutes. "watching a crime and not reporting it is being complicit." Just think on it for a few minutes, see if you can figure out why it's so absurd.

Strange. My sister (23) Seems to aggree. As does her fiance (23). And the friends I have bounced this around with (20ish).

The general opinion? Watching a crime, deliberately, and not doing anything about it makes you complicit. If it is a crime like CHILD RAPE, it makes you scum.

And, to quote a very dear friend of mine:

Mr. Bonejangles: Some people need to get off the internet and go outside once in a while or they might start thinking 4chan is general opinion

I am amazed that I got a warning. For stating that people who watch child pornography, rape, snuff or people being mutilated, for fun, are scum. By all accounts, they are. I would not want someone who does any of the above near children, the elderly, anyone vulnerable.

One final statement, a direct quote from my sister.

"The kind of person who has become so desensitized to violence, rape and abuse is the kind of person who would have sex with someone unable to give consent."

And now?

I am done with this thread. If you want to talk about my views, IM me. I will no longer be commenting.

evilneko:

RazadaMk2:

So! In answer to your first question, yes. watching a crime and not reporting it is being complicit to the committing of said crime.

You really have no idea how utterly ridiculous that is, do you? Seriously, think about that statement for a few minutes. "watching a crime and not reporting it is being complicit." Just think on it for a few minutes, see if you can figure out why it's so absurd.

Except, absurd or not, laws like that exist...

Grey Day for Elcia:

theultimateend:

Regnes:

There are websites for such things, and they are legal. I have seen an actual living person have his head cut off with a chainsaw for real.

Which I don't suggest, it turns out your head is like...SUPER important.

Omg that made me lol something fierce. I'm sick, I'm in a shit mood and my boyfriend dumped me two days ago, so you can imagine how difficult that is to do.

Well done!

+100

Happy to have been of service :). Normally I just annoy folks ;).

RazadaMk2:
-snip-

You got a warning and then you go and do the same thing again. It wasn't me that reported you, btw, despite your personal attack on practically everyone in the world.

I've no desire to continue this "discussion" in PM. I'll leave it to you to figure out why, though I have a hunch you'll come to the wrong conclusion.

Matthew94:

Wolverine18:

Matthew94:

And the person who made it should be punished not the viewers.

People can be charged for encouraging someone to commit a crime too.

I agree but I don't think watchig = encouraging.

Why then do you think pedos have a history, especially since the advent of the webcam, of performing for free and "taking requests" on the net? They get off knowing others get off watching them molest the kids.

Wolverine18:

Why then do you think pedos have a history, especially since the advent of the webcam, of performing for free and "taking requests" on the net? They get off knowing others get off watching them molest the kids.

[Citation Needed]

You could say that about anyone. The activity of performing sexual acts via webcam is hardly exclusive to pedophiles.

Cecilthedarkknight_234:

Oh yeah that feeling when you can go to prison for watching/reading strike witches, dance in the vampire bund or knj because others find it offensive.

To be fair about Strike Witches... You know that feeling when you're browsing porn and you go from finding girls who are young and perky and maybe, just might be under 18 to finding a girl who probably hasn't even had her period yet and suddenly your boner just dies and you want to call your mom to tell her you're sorry for everything you've ever done wrong?

That's the feeling I get when I see Strike Witches. Maybe that's just me though.

ilovemyLunchbox:

Cecilthedarkknight_234:

Oh yeah that feeling when you can go to prison for watching/reading strike witches, dance in the vampire bund or knj because others find it offensive.

To be fair about Strike Witches... You know that feeling when you're browsing porn and you go from finding girls who are young and perky and maybe, just might be under 18 to finding a girl who probably hasn't even had her period yet and suddenly your boner just dies and you want to call your mom to tell her you're sorry for everything you've ever done wrong?

That's the feeling I get when I see Strike Witches. Maybe that's just me though.

well i am more an ass man and the camera is focused on that, also i prefer the oldest witch who was 21 "sakamoto mio so meh" but to each his/her own. Still I liked the series and going to prison over it waste of money lawl but I do know that feeling.

Matthew94:

funcooker11811:

Matthew94:

They can take it as encouragement but it's not direct encouragement.

Seriously? "They can take it as encouragement"? How the hell else are they supposed to take it? Again, please explain that one to me, because i'm sure whatever justification you can use for it must be something incredible.

They can take it whatever way they want but I feel if the person doesn't sirectly say "I want more of this to be made" they shouldn't be charged with the crime of "encouragement" especially if no money is made off of it.

If you watch a video of someone molesting a child to completion, then yes, you are guilty of encouragement. I'm not talking about getting a troll link, I mean seriously watching CP. By watching those videos, you validate the people that make them, and you're saying that you're okay with child molestation. How the hell is that not encouraging them, and why shouldn't that be criminalized?

Matthew94:

Wolverine18:

Why then do you think pedos have a history, especially since the advent of the webcam, of performing for free and "taking requests" on the net? They get off knowing others get off watching them molest the kids.

[Citation Needed]

You could say that about anyone. The activity of performing sexual acts via webcam is hardly exclusive to pedophiles.

No need for a citation, you just agreed with me.

And I never said it was exclusive, its the same as for everyone else, so now that we are in agreement that they do it for that purpose, you understand that many get off knowing you will watch these things and make them accordingly. More abuse happens because people are a willing audience.

Matthew94:

Wolverine18:

Matthew94:

Then everyone with basic net skills is now not a good citizen, including yourself.

If I find child porn, I report it to the police.

That's good of you.

I'd bet few of those leads were ever followed up. With technologies like Tor it's very difficult for these people to be found.

*chuckles*

I bet you weren't around for the first world wide anon server that served so many in the early 90s. So many arrests in the end lol

SaneAmongInsane:

shintakie10:

SaneAmongInsane:

Seems like an easy way someone could set another person up. All you need is access to their computer with out them knowing.

I think the law is best left as is. Theres to many ways that could be abused if it's changed.

It already is abused horribly. The only reason no one seems to give a damn is because its bein abused by police and prosecutors to put people away when their only crime was lookin at somethin on the internet. Hell, its abused to put sex offender tags on 17 year olds who text naked pictures of themselves to their partners.

Child pornography laws are so horribly fucked that any progress like this is good progress. Hopefully one day people will get their heads out of their collective asses and realize viewin CP is a victimless crime. If a person rapes a child, go after that person with the full extent of the law. If a person molests a child, same thing. The people who give money to people who molest and rape children? Throw the fuckin book at em. However if a person simply views an image file on the internet and doesn't give a dime to anyone for it, leave them the fuck alone.

Dude, I would not go as far as to say it's victimless. Theres still the child being exploited.

I agree theres a lot of gray area with this shit though where the wrong people being prosecuted. But this is what happens when you have overzelious D.A.s that care more about their conviction rate then true justice.

Its victimless for the person watchin. They can do absolutely nothin to stop what for all they know happened 5 years ago by watchin somethin on the internet. The actual act of exploitin the child is the crime with a victim. If they watch some sort of livestream and don't report it, yeah there is a problem there because you absolutely know that someone, at this very moment, is bein hurt and you do nothin about it.

If you (and that you isn't specifically you, but a general you) can separate someone watchin someone else be killed in a video from the person who is actually killin someone. Why is it that you can't separate the person watchin CP from the person who is actively creatin CP?

Yeah, because I'd like to live in a country where the police can arrest me on the suspicion that I looked at an image they don't want me to...

It only illegal if consciously download, save or print the child pornography, and they've made it legal so that people aren't arrested for viewing shock sites or getting trolled or something. That's what I got from it, makes sense.

Wolverine18:

Matthew94:

Wolverine18:

If I find child porn, I report it to the police.

That's good of you.

I'd bet few of those leads were ever followed up. With technologies like Tor it's very difficult for these people to be found.

*chuckles*

I bet you weren't around for the first world wide anon server that served so many in the early 90s. So many arrests in the end lol

Big difference between joining a server and using Tor or using a good VPN that keeps no logs and puts multiple users under the same IP address so detecting what 1 user does is pretty difficult if not impossible.

*chuckles*

>Compares 90s tech to 2012
>wat

shintakie10:

SaneAmongInsane:

shintakie10:

It already is abused horribly. The only reason no one seems to give a damn is because its bein abused by police and prosecutors to put people away when their only crime was lookin at somethin on the internet. Hell, its abused to put sex offender tags on 17 year olds who text naked pictures of themselves to their partners.

Child pornography laws are so horribly fucked that any progress like this is good progress. Hopefully one day people will get their heads out of their collective asses and realize viewin CP is a victimless crime. If a person rapes a child, go after that person with the full extent of the law. If a person molests a child, same thing. The people who give money to people who molest and rape children? Throw the fuckin book at em. However if a person simply views an image file on the internet and doesn't give a dime to anyone for it, leave them the fuck alone.

Dude, I would not go as far as to say it's victimless. Theres still the child being exploited.

I agree theres a lot of gray area with this shit though where the wrong people being prosecuted. But this is what happens when you have overzelious D.A.s that care more about their conviction rate then true justice.

Its victimless for the person watchin. They can do absolutely nothin to stop what for all they know happened 5 years ago by watchin somethin on the internet. The actual act of exploitin the child is the crime with a victim. If they watch some sort of livestream and don't report it, yeah there is a problem there because you absolutely know that someone, at this very moment, is bein hurt and you do nothin about it.

If you (and that you isn't specifically you, but a general you) can separate someone watchin someone else be killed in a video from the person who is actually killin someone. Why is it that you can't separate the person watchin CP from the person who is actively creatin CP?

I mean certainly it's victimless to the person that accidently stumbles across it. But to the guy actively seeking it out and jerking off to it? thats not victimless.

Same thing applies to your scenario, I think. if I'm actively seeking out a video of someone being murdered, I'm complicit.

Maybe thats the deciding difference I think? Fuck I don't know.

I know a few people who have come across it accidentally. There are a variety of hosting websites where you might just randomly run into this crap. This is because while the pedophile is dumb enough to upload his illegal material to the fricken internet, he isn't dumb enough to call it something like "pedo porn bjs compilation". Its something random like "popsicles".

To the point this law was designed so innocent people don't go to jail, we can't always be blamed for what we uncover on the internet. We can however be blamed for what we personally download and distribute.

Hell yeah now i'm moving to New York.

Why can't they make viewing it illegal and solve the cases with sound judgement? Is that so much to ask?

-This guy viewed 1 image of child porn, for 2.8 seconds, and that is all - I don't think he looked for it, I think he accidently stumbled upon it.

-This guy viewed 2,519 images over the course of 8 months - I don't think he stumbled upon all 2,519 images...

I see a lot of hate in this thread and although there are some people who don't just join the witch hunt which is nice.
Glad to see this law got passed as it's a step in the right direction and I can only hope more places use this kinda law.

LegendaryGamer0:

So, legal status of it in the United States is: Do whatever you want because the law has no actual opinion on it.

Say it with me now, Land of the Freeeeeeeee, and the Home of the Brrrraaaavvvvveeeee~

Yes! Yes! Yes! This is fantastic ne-wait. I already deleted all my good pics...I'll never find them again! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

EDIT: Wait, wait, fuck, just to be clear, I'm talking about lolicon, not real stuff.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked