Thread: Viewing Child Porn On Internet Now Legal in New York

Bright side: no more otakus getting thrown into jail for being a odd ball who likes Loli.

Which helps me cause I happen to have a character who I draw that is young and female, so yay no getting thrown int jail for having a Loli character.

Originally Posted by Tsurugi

Oh yes. The "free speech" and "THOUGHTCRIMES" excuse. That gets thrown around by pedophiles all the time as an excuse to make pedophilia seem less like the horrendous crime it is. Freedom of speech does not give someone the right to think or say or think anything they want. That is like saying that hate groups like the KKK should be allowed to spew their bigoted views because banning it would be infringing on their rights. That is ABUSE of the first amendment.

The First Amendment would mean almost nothing if it wasn't abused. As honestly as disgusted as we might be, it wouldn't be freedom of speech if it was speech everyone agreed with and thought was right.

As for the case, on one hand I can see how clicking on the image even on the net could be considered as knowingly taking possession of it. On the other hand locking people up just for viewing it, can lead to some people being locked up for clicking on the wrong link by accident.

Really what I see this doing is alot of people are going to end up just having a cache of links that they can look up quickly to view what they want, thus having their porn with out taking possession by the letter of the law.

Still...eww

Originally Posted by Haxie-Kun-infinity

Bright side: no more otakus getting thrown into jail for being a odd ball who likes Loli.

Which helps me cause I happen to have a character who I draw that is young and female, so yay no getting thrown int jail for having a Loli character.

It's true, going too far in the opposite direction, and we lose so many creative works that could have been... Loveless, anyone? >.> But seriously, I don't really care what kinds of things people do/like, as a long as they keep these kinds of things in their heads and/or on the fictional plane. As for arguments that thoughts lead to people actually doing said stuff, there are arguments for both sides, if anyone's bored enough to go look it up.

Originally Posted by SiguusaEcho

Originally Posted by Haxie-Kun-infinity

Bright side: no more otakus getting thrown into jail for being a odd ball who likes Loli.

Which helps me cause I happen to have a character who I draw that is young and female, so yay no getting thrown int jail for having a Loli character.

It's true, going too far in the opposite direction, and we lose so many creative works that could have been... Loveless, anyone? >.> But seriously, I don't really care what kinds of things people do/like, as a long as they keep these kinds of things in their heads and/or on the fictional plane. As for arguments that thoughts lead to people actually doing said stuff, there are arguments for both sides, if anyone's bored enough to go look it up.

Oddly enough this means no more use of the excuse "Oh you got Loli art so off to jail!" thing. Something that has been used to send otakus who used third party websites to keep up with manga or anime since it happens to be hard to get hard proof that they are actually using third party websites.

This is bringing back really bad memories of an incident involving my dad just before he died.

But anyway, taking myself out of the equation for a minute here, I'm pretty fine with this ruling. I can understand the reasons behind it. People who produce child pornography should be locked up and punished justly, but viewing it really isn't something to get thrown in jail over. That's a bit over-doing it in my eyes.

The fact that somebody is viewing child pornography is cause for concern, insomuch as they need a talking-to and a slap on the wrist. The fact that somebody is making child pornography is reason for arrest and punishment.

Originally Posted by Jack Pschitt

This is bringing back really bad memories of an incident involving my dad just before he died.

But anyway, taking myself out of the equation for a minute here, I'm pretty fine with this ruling. I can understand the reasons behind it. People who produce child pornography should be locked up and punished justly, but viewing it really isn't something to get thrown in jail over. That's a bit over-doing it in my eyes.

The fact that somebody is viewing child pornography is cause for concern, insomuch as they need a talking-to and a slap on the wrist. The fact that somebody is making child pornography is reason for arrest and punishment.

Except a lot of child porn is made in places where the law can't get to them - Places that just ignore it, or "have bigger fish to fry". So the only effective way of controlling it in places like US/Canada is to punish those who view it to deter others from viewing it. Less demand = less supply. The sickos who post that stuff do it for profit :\

That is just sick. I refuse to even say it.

Originally Posted by Shinobu

Okay, guys. Let's actually take a look at what the article said instead of looking at a sensationalist title.

This person had two of his charges dropped. He had "dozens" of other charges, which were upheld.

The issue here is that the court found that the prosecution could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that having images on a browser cache was sufficient evidence for the charges. Whenever you visit a website for the first time, your browser caches the images on it. If some one were to unknowingly stumble upon a website that had child pornography (this can actually happen), the images on that website would be cached. The person obviously did not commit a crime (assuming they left the site immediately), but the evidence of committing a crime is still in the browser.

Now there is a problem, though, when trying to prosecute people who do not store evidence on their computers. If a collection of hundreds of pictures on a browser cache is not sufficient evidence for a conviction, the person who committed the crime may not be convicted.

I pretty much agree with this.

Another example is if someone sends me a link and I click it - if it's child porn (which I do *not* want to look at), the cache will be saved and I'll be a criminal (before you say it won't happen - it's happened to me, but with furries instead of chidren). That obviously isn't justice.

Hypothetical situation here (although I know it does happen):

13 year old girl receives a message on her cell phone. Upon opening the image she sees that it's from her 14 year old boyfriend who attached a picture of his gentials.

Technically, this girl has broken the law by downloading and viewing child pornography (pre-ruling). Technically the boyfriend has broken the law by making and distributing child pornography.

Does anyone think either of these two should be arrested and charged, and upon conviction be labeled as sex offenders for the rest of their lives?

Originally Posted by Jay0173

Hypothetical situation here (although I know it does happen):

13 year old girl receives a message on her cell phone. Upon opening the image she sees that it's from her 14 year old boyfriend who attached a picture of his gentials.

Technically, this girl has broken the law by downloading and viewing child pornography (pre-ruling). Technically the boyfriend has broken the law by making and distributing child pornography.

Does anyone think either of these two should be arrested and charged, and upon conviction be labeled as sex offenders for the rest of their lives?

In theory, they could be charged, but I don't recall any major cases of it happening.

Originally Posted by Jabberwocky

Originally Posted by Jay0173

Hypothetical situation here (although I know it does happen):

13 year old girl receives a message on her cell phone. Upon opening the image she sees that it's from her 14 year old boyfriend who attached a picture of his gentials.

Technically, this girl has broken the law by downloading and viewing child pornography (pre-ruling). Technically the boyfriend has broken the law by making and distributing child pornography.

Does anyone think either of these two should be arrested and charged, and upon conviction be labeled as sex offenders for the rest of their lives?

In theory, they could be charged, but I don't recall any major cases of it happening.

Heree are two such cases:

"Sexting" Leads to Child Porn Charges for Teens - CBS News

'Sexting’ surprise: Teens face child porn charges - Technology & science - Tech and gadgets - Cell phones - msnbc.com

Also, how about this hypothetical:

A mother takes a photo of her three year old boy playing in a small swimming pool out in the backyard. The child is naked. The mother then shows that photo to family and friends.

Is she guilty of posessing, manufacturing, and distributing child pornography?

Originally Posted by Jay0173

Also, how about this hypothetical:

A mother takes a photo of her three year old boy playing in a small swimming pool out in the backyard. The child is naked. The mother then shows that photo to family and friends.

Is she guilty of posessing, manufacturing, and distributing child pornography?

While an interesting thought, try this hypothetical:

Take the scenario you described, and instead of the mother "showing" the photograph to family and friends, say she e-mails it to them. Then, let's say they download the image to their HDD. Are they guilty of possessing child pornography? Because in what way, then, are they different than the people downloading pictures of naked children every day off of the internet? Does this now make the practice okay? Or shall we have the Party Van round up everyone?

Originally Posted by Kaustic

While an interesting thought, try this hypothetical:

Take the scenario you described, and instead of the mother "showing" the photograph to family and friends, say she e-mails it to them. Then, let's say they download the image to their HDD. Are they guilty of possessing child pornography? Because in what way, then, are they different than the people downloading pictures of naked children every day off of the internet? Does this now make the practice okay? Or shall we have the Party Van round up everyone?

Personally, I think it's shit the sleazebag got it so easy. Hopefully he'll get to play the child for his cellmate.

I find the wishing of harm to any individual, regardless of their actions, to be disturbing. I wouldn't wish that kind of harm one anyone. And I speak as a rape survivor myself. No one deserves it.

Speaking to your question though, if the law were to be so loosely interpreted as to designate any photo containing child nudity pornography, then yes, she would be guilty. And so would every parent who ever took a picture of their children in the bathtub, or swimming in the nude. Hell, my own mother would be guilty as she has nude pictures of me when I was a baby and toddler.

Thankfully, however, most prosecutors are more level headed and understand the difference between a parent innocently taking pictures of their own child in cute situations, verses adults taking pictures of children for the purpose of their own or others sexual gratification.

Originally Posted by Jay0173

I find the wishing of harm to any individual, regardless of their actions, to be disturbing. I wouldn't wish that kind of harm one anyone. And I speak as a rape survivor myself. No one deserves it.

Speaking to your question though, if the law were to be so loosely interpreted as to designate any photo containing child nudity pornography, then yes, she would be guilty. And so would every parent who ever took a picture of their children in the bathtub, or swimming in the nude. Hell, my own mother would be guilty as she has nude pictures of me when I was a baby and toddler.

Thankfully, however, most prosecutors are more level headed and understand the difference between a parent innocently taking pictures of their own child in cute situations, verses adults taking pictures of children for the purpose of their own or others sexual gratification.

I find the attraction to children by adults to be disturbing, and far worse than merely wishing someone to be punished by their own hand. You're entitled to your opinion, and I mine. (However, I am sorry for what happened to you.)

And the rest of your post is playing to my point. That being that in your original question, the mother would not be guilty because of context. The law isn't as black and white as most assume.