New York Court: Viewing Online Child Porn Is Legal
http://news.yahoo.com/york-court-viewing-online-child-porn-legal-101844909.html

This is a perfectly reasonable decision based upon what the law actually "is" and not what we all would like it to be.

"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 in his majority opinion. "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."

There is nothing shocking or appalling about this ruling. The law simply needs to be changed to encompass viewing, as well as possessing and/or procuring. 

Are you saying, basically, that someone who clicks on an unknown link and unwittingly views child porn hasn't committed a crime unless he decides to save the pics, continues going to the site, etc. etc? If so, I'd say that's reasonable.

Originally Posted By Ubercat (9 MAY 2012 6:18pm)

Are you saying, basically, that someone who clicks on an unknown link and unwittingly views child porn hasn't committed a crime unless he decides to save the pics, continues going to the site, etc. etc? If so, I'd say that's reasonable.

My view is if they couldn't prove he personally accessed the material then there shouldn't have been any conviction, but we know from the charges that weren't dropped that he was not only viewing the material, but he also was not an unwitting victim of someone else's crimes.  I think this notion that one could view such material, could surf such sites, and not be guilty of a crime unless and until he actually downloaded a picture is ludicrous.  I'm not a lawyer but to me intent is more important than the letter of the law.  I view the ruling as unreasonable.

Originally Posted By ActionJack (9 MAY 2012 6:36pm)

 I'm not a lawyer but to me intent is more important than the letter of the law.  I view the ruling as unreasonable.

 

It is not the ruling that you should find unreasonable, its the actual law regarding electronic child pornography.  The penal law was drafted well before this kind of material became so accessible on the internet.  The law is simply not keeping up with technology.  This is common problem impacting upon numerous issues.

Unfortunately, Judges cannot legislate. Hopefully, with results like this, the law will be amended quickly.

Originally Posted By Ubercat (9 MAY 2012 6:18pm)

Are you saying, basically, that someone who clicks on an unknown link and unwittingly views child porn hasn't committed a crime unless he decides to save the pics, continues going to the site, etc. etc? If so, I'd say that's reasonable.

This was my thinking as well. 

It looks like you were thinking of Dwarf-Porn

Originally Posted By ActionJack (9 MAY 2012 6:36pm)

Originally Posted By Ubercat (9 MAY 2012 6:18pm)

Are you saying, basically, that someone who clicks on an unknown link and unwittingly views child porn hasn't committed a crime unless he decides to save the pics, continues going to the site, etc. etc? If so, I'd say that's reasonable.

My view is if they couldn't prove he personally accessed the material then there shouldn't have been any conviction, but we know from the charges that weren't dropped that he was not only viewing the material, but he also was not an unwitting victim of someone else's crimes.  I think this notion that one could view such material, could surf such sites, and not be guilty of a crime unless and until he actually downloaded a picture is ludicrous.  I'm not a lawyer but to me intent is more important than the letter of the law.  I view the ruling as unreasonable.

 

Well, what the other charges were may be irrelevant to the law that was ruled on. Personally, whilst it appears he was a pedo, and therefore should die a death of a thousand cuts as far as I am concerned - I think its dangerous territory to start convicting people simply on what they may "view" on the internet. If I create a site called kids wargaming and you you were looking for a site for your son to start in the hobby, but I populate it with child porno - does that make you guilty of anything if you access it ? I think not - and the law is as much about protecting the innocent as convicting the guilty. Now I know not if such a thing would likely happen or if you only find child porn on the internet if you go looking for it. In any event - I think there has to be a higher standard of proof for this as there are likely other things aside from child porn you can be convicted for just by what you do on the internet ... The images concerned in the ruling were in his web cache - now if I read a story about bomb making and decide to see if all this stuff about instructions are posted on the internet is actually true - do a few pipe bomb images in my cache from a google search make me a terrorist ? Personally I would rather a few of the guilty go free than inncocents are falsely sentenced - that above all else is a failure of law. To me it seems the story is just another example of the media simplifying to get a headline when the technical and legal issues are much more complex.

Edit ... although having read the full judgement it certainly seems there was a higher standard of proof - though certain recovered emails seem to add a very odd connotation to the case.

The court dismissed one of two counts of promoting a sexual performance of a child and two of the 143 counts of possessing child pornography with which Kent was originally charged. It upheld the other counts, which were tied to a folder on Kent's machine filled with thousands of images of child pornography.

http://news.yahoo.com/york-court-viewing-online-child-porn-legal-101844909.html

I saw a sailor who was charged with surfing porn on a government computer.  He claimed it was not him and that he downloaded no images.  The fact was that there were images in the queue; a surfing trail in the browser history all on the duty computer he was assigned access to during his after-hours duty assignment.  Needless to say his excuse didn't wash.

I actually made an account to post on this.  I've been lurking here for years.

I'm partially with ActionJack on this one.

A member of my unit when I was attached to NMCB 40 was convicted of viewing child pornography on his personal laptop while deployed.

The evidence brought against the member included cached photos from web browsing, yet no physical downloads or media on his hard drive.

The initial hearing was made during a public Captains Mast, where the Skipper declared that had the individual come across a website containing lewd or inappropriate images of children and then immediately reported the incident he would have only been reprimanded for viewing unauthorized material while in country.  However, since the individual had several cached images over a period of several days indicating a pattern of visitation the Skipper determined that the sailor would be punished in the full.

However in civilian court I can see how a hearing on allowing such evidence to enter court could lead down a slippery slope.  "Well you where on a forum with pirated videos linked to it, and visited this website several times..."

At the place where i worked until recently the night security guy was downloading and printing

some really BAD pictures with people and various animals and assorted other unusual things.

The printer ran out of paper one night and he forgot he had some grotty pictures in the printer cue.

In the morning one of the admin staff routinely loaded paper and the printer began to do its job.

She had ordered nothing so wandered off.  The Regional Manager wandered in and picked up the prints

and was trying to be helpful waving them around and saying who printed up this stuff?

Kinda like a TV show.  ...Anyway the security guy said somebody must have snuck in at night and downloaded

the stuff.  It did not save his job.

cheers

Originally Posted By ActionJack (10 MAY 2012 4:46pm)

The court dismissed one of two counts of promoting a sexual performance of a child and two of the 143 counts of possessing child pornography with which Kent was originally charged. It upheld the other counts, which were tied to a folder on Kent's machine filled with thousands of images of child pornography.

http://news.yahoo.com/york-court-viewing-online-child-porn-legal-101844909.html

 

I saw a sailor who was charged with surfing porn on a government computer.  He claimed it was not him and that he downloaded no images.  The fact was that there were images in the queue; a surfing trail in the browser history all on the duty computer he was assigned access to during his after-hours duty assignment.  Needless to say his excuse didn't wash.

Yes I understand what you are saying - but the point is the ones he was cleared of were the cached images. I fully understand your point of view but they were ruling on a point of law. I am not sure the law or judges have the ability to be as subjective as you are implying they should have been - and to rule on intent like this. Cached images do not imply a criminal act by default - whereas a downloaded and deliberately stored image does. That is what I think the ruling was about and hence I think the media is putting a spin on things to generate a headline. I dont like this guy anymore than you do - but as I say the internet is a strange place - you can type almost anything into google and get porn returned and saved in your cache - if that was illegal then most of the world would be in prison. I have to say - if judges are not allowed that freedom of subjectivity - which I dont think they are or should be but rule on whther something is against the law technically - then as far as the limited terms of reference of the actual counts that were dismissed in principle I would have to agree with that. He was convicted because of the other stuff anyway so the law seems to have worked.

Originally Posted By DBeves (11 MAY 2012 2:15am)
Yes I understand what you are saying - but the point is the ones he was cleared of were the cached images. I fully understand your point of view but they were ruling on a point of law. I am not sure the law or judges have the ability to be as subjective as you are implying they should have been - and to rule on intent like this. Cached images do not imply a criminal act by default - whereas a downloaded and deliberately stored image does. That is what I think the ruling was about and hence I think the media is putting a spin on things to generate a headline. I dont like this guy anymore than you do - but as I say the internet is a strange place - you can type almost anything into google and get porn returned and saved in your cache - if that was illegal then most of the world would be in prison. I have to say - if judges are not allowed that freedom of subjectivity - which I dont think they are or should be but rule on whther something is against the law technically - then as far as the limited terms of reference of the actual counts that were dismissed in principle I would have to agree with that. He was convicted because of the other stuff anyway so the law seems to have worked.

I am probably straying to another subject but if a judge can't consider the intent of an individual and the intent of the law, what do we need him for?  We might as well just hire a legal aid who can research law books to give us a ruling.  I'm not completely comfortable with the concept either but sometimes we need a little wisdom of Solomon out of our judges.

As to the media this is a case where they are doing the job we need them to do.  As JH pointed out earlier, we need our laws updated to account for changes in technology.  This leaves me uneasy too though because what are we going to change the law to, any viewing of such material becomes illegal?  Where is that line drawn?  How do we separate unintentional viewing from intentional?  This guy was caught redhanded so it seems to me the judge opened a door that didn't need to be opened.