Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 28 of 28

Thread: Viewing child pornography not a crime according to New York court ruling

  1. #21
    Guru
    Aderleth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    04-08-16 @ 06:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,294

    Re: Viewing child pornography not a crime according to New York court ruling

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    I guess I can see why it turned out this way. Temporary caching is done automatically by the browser, so the viewer is not really purposefully maintaining possession of the files.

    I'm glad the ruling went this way, because I wouldn't like the precedent that merely viewing a website makes you liable for "possessing" its content. We've all been Goatse'd/Lemonparty'd/Rickroll'd/etc.
    There's some logic to this view, and it was my initial response to the case. However, I just browsed the opinion, and there are two things worth mentioning:

    1) The laws at issue require intentional procurement/etc. This means that someone getting the child porn equivalent of a Rickrolling is not going to be in trouble.

    2) What does it really mean to "obtain, acquire . . . to get possession of by particular care or effort"? That's the language used to define "procurement" in the judge's opinion. How does that work with respect to the internet? It would be grammatically correct and understandable for me to say something like "now that I've set up a profile, I've procured access to this webpage." Should that type of "procurement" fall within the range of the law? I don't think there's a clear answer there.

    However, it doesn't really matter much, because...


    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    I wouldn't be surprised at all to see the legislature pass a law on this quickly, although I think that starts to get into a shady area. Child pornography is a terrible thing and I'd love to see every sick bastard who creates it in prison, but the idea that one could go to jail just for looking at a website or looking at an image is a line I'm uneasy about crossing.
    Totally agree.
    Last edited by Aderleth; 05-10-12 at 02:13 AM.

  2. #22
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Republic of Texas.
    Last Seen
    11-15-17 @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,647

    Re: Viewing child pornography not a crime according to New York court ruling

    Quote Originally Posted by ThePlayDrive View Post
    That entire thing disgusts me. I remember a few stories of ~19 year old guys with ~16 year girlfriends and the 19 year old was either beaten or killed by idiots who saw them on the sex offender registry. Other cases were less severe with such people being ostracized by their community. I don't believe public sex offender registries should exist period, but if they have to, people with crimes like public urination or having a hardly underage girlfriend should not be on the list.
    I am not really up on sex offender registries and all the crimes that these individuals have to register for, but how in the world is urinating in public even a sex related crime, unless the individual was paticipating in "water sports" with their partner at the time?

    Some states do include an age difference in their statutory laws and 16 is the most common age of consent in the US and is the age of consent outlined in the UCMJ for military members. If you are convicted of a statutory offence in one state and move to another, it should only be made public on the list in the new state if the conviction would of still met statutory laws in that state. Crimes like solicitation and many other "sex" crimes should not be on a list.

    The only people who should be put on a sex offender list are those who meet statutory requirements (with a sutible age difference clause) but the underage person has already developed sexual attributes. Ok, that probably just confused the hell of of some people. Basically, I believe that if you commit forcable rape/sodomy, molest children who have not "budded" or other heinious sexual crimes, then you should be convicted, subjected to chemical interogation to confirm guilt, then taken out back, put on your knees and receive a double tap from .22 into the back of your skull. No need for a list of them then.

    The government overall is still trying to get a grip on the whole internet thing. Why it is taking them so long, /shrug, I have no idea. It is not overly difficult. All of us, and probably anyone who has done a search on the internet have encountered offensive pop-ups and sights that are listed as one thing in the search but have been taken over by someone else. As I accidently found out one time, if you want to search for sex related sites, don't search for sex related sites, search for children sites. Pokemon, Barney, Dora the explorer searches yield far more porn results than searching for "porn". It is not hard to get a count of how many times someone took a certain link, a couple of hits is probably a mistake and you shouldn't be held responsible for it, but if you went back to the same link 100s of times, you are intentionally viewing the material and if that material is child porn, to bad, too sad, enjoy the sexual comforts provided by your cell mate in prison. If you purposely posses, distribute or produce child porn, then if the state is short of bullets, I will be more than happy to go to Walmart and buy them some more.

  3. #23
    Sage
    Erod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Texas
    Last Seen
    12-09-17 @ 11:30 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,026

    Re: Viewing child pornography not a crime according to New York court ruling

    There is virtually nothing more disgustingly degenerate than child porn.

    That said, we've all come across stuff online by accident that we didn't seek. The internet is fraught with bear traps.

  4. #24
    Only Losers H8 Capitalism
    Spartacus FPV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In your echo chamber
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    12,885

    Re: Viewing child pornography not a crime according to New York court ruling

    IMO so long as 17 year olds sexting with eachother constitutes producing child pornography and public urination in a school zone or sex with a minor as a minor lands you on that sex offender's list, I take issue with the automatic zero tolerance no exceptions approach to trying to protect children.

    Those kinds of stories, like the infant on the Terrorist Watch list, reminds me how often we take our laws too far.
    Haymarket's "support" of the 2nd Amendment, a right he believes we never had.
    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    no. You cannot lose rights you do not have in the first place. There is no such thing as the right to have any weapon of your choice regardless of any other consideration. It simply does not exist.

  5. #25
    Sage
    SmokeAndMirrors's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    RVA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,142
    Public urination might be considered a "sex crime" if someone sees your junk. Thus, it's public exposure. Why public exposure in the total absence of any sexual insinuation is a sex crime is beyond me.

    The statutory rape thing is really problematic. A teenager who is 2 or 3 years older than another teenager is not having sex with a child who is unable to understand what sex is, or a middle-aged person in a position of authority coercing a vulnerable student. It's a couple of teenagers. We let 16-year-olds drive but we think they're too vulnerable to have sex with someone one or two grades above them?

    Our sex offender laws are ridiculous, but there is a sorta-valid reason the sex offender registry exists.

    In terms of true sex offenders - rapists, pedophiles, etc - we can't rehabilitate them. They will more than likely offend again. The people living around them have a right to know.

    But that being the case, I'm not sure why we dump them back into society when we damn well know they're still a danger. Seems like if you know someone will probably hurt an innocent person and destroy their psyche if you let them back out, you shouldn't let them out.

    Sent from the depths of my device of mass distraction. I should probably be getting something done right now.
    Last edited by SmokeAndMirrors; 05-10-12 at 11:57 AM.

  6. #26
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    08-14-12 @ 11:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,928

    Re: Viewing child pornography not a crime according to New York court ruling

    Quote Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors View Post


    Our sex offender laws are ridiculous, but there is a sorta-valid reason the sex offender registry exists.

    In terms of true sex offenders - rapists, pedophiles, etc - we can't rehabilitate them. They will more than likely offend again.
    Well, not according to the USDOJ they're not. In fact, they have a lower recidivism rate than most offenders. The offense with the highest rate of reoffense is drug offenders. Sex offender 5 year release reoffense rate is 5.3%. If that sounds high to you, consider that 5.3% of the 750,000 people on the sex offender registry are the dangerous ones. Almost 95% are not. 8.6% of non-sex offender related offenders re offended within 5 years of release. 86% of new sex offenses are committed by people that are not on the registry. So exactly what good does this society "to-hate" list do?

    http://www.drc.ohio.gov/web/Reports/Sexrecid.pdf

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_offender

    It is a common misconception that all sex offenders reoffend. Its one of those things the media has repeated enough times that people accept it as truth. Well, it's not. In fact, have a look at the sex offender registry and just pick people out at random. I had to read about 30 profiles before I found someone who reoffended, and this persons' first offense was in 1968 and their second was in 2008. That hardly counts.
    Last edited by dontworrybehappy; 05-11-12 at 12:46 AM.

  7. #27
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    08-14-12 @ 11:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,928

    Re: Viewing child pornography not a crime according to New York court ruling

    I have no idea why I feel the need to post this but I do.

    This is hilarious.


  8. #28
    Sage
    SmokeAndMirrors's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    RVA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,142

    Re: Viewing child pornography not a crime according to New York court ruling

    Quote Originally Posted by dontworrybehappy View Post
    Well, not according to the USDOJ they're not. In fact, they have a lower recidivism rate than most offenders. The offense with the highest rate of reoffense is drug offenders. Sex offender 5 year release reoffense rate is 5.3%. If that sounds high to you, consider that 5.3% of the 750,000 people on the sex offender registry are the dangerous ones. Almost 95% are not. 8.6% of non-sex offender related offenders re offended within 5 years of release. 86% of new sex offenses are committed by people that are not on the registry. So exactly what good does this society "to-hate" list do?

    http://www.drc.ohio.gov/web/Reports/Sexrecid.pdf

    Sex offender - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    It is a common misconception that all sex offenders reoffend. Its one of those things the media has repeated enough times that people accept it as truth. Well, it's not. In fact, have a look at the sex offender registry and just pick people out at random. I had to read about 30 profiles before I found someone who reoffended, and this persons' first offense was in 1968 and their second was in 2008. That hardly counts.
    The stats you quoted included ALL "sex offenders." In many cases that means people who get caught peeing in public, or 18-year-old's who have sex with 16-year-olds. I don't consider those to be actual "sex offenses" and I wasn't referring to those in my post.

    If you isolate the types of sex offenders I was referring to (rape, pedophiles, etc), it's considerably higher.

    Your first source says:
    Recidivism rates differed considerably based on a victim typology:
    ’Rapists’ (adult victims) 48.7%
    Teen Victims (age 13-17) 31.1%
    Child Victims (under age 13) 21.9%
    All Incest Cases 8.6%
    Also, keep in mind that rape (of either adults or children) is one of the most under-reported crimes there is. Most rapists never spend a day in jail.

    54% of rapes/sexual assaults are not reported to the police, according to a statistical average of the past 5 years. Those rapists, of course, never spend a day in prison. Factoring in unreported rapes, only about 3% of rapists ever serve a day in jail.
    Reporting Rates | RAINN | Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network (references are Justice Department, FBI, DoJ, National Center for Policy Analysis)

    We know through psychological study that most serious sex offenders DO re-offend... and we also know that most of them get away with it, and even those who are convicted are only ever punished for a small fraction of the real crimes they commit. When promised confidentiality, almost 65% of rapists admit to further sex crimes, averaging out to 4.4 rapes per rapist who is in prison. Of the majority who admitted to multiple sex crimes, they were also more likely to have been generally violent and to have sexually assaulted both adults and children. They often show signs of sociopathy.

    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...jFDTwqz4mtUXIQ

    (^Let me know if this link doesn't work - it should open up a PDF)
    Last edited by SmokeAndMirrors; 05-11-12 at 09:07 AM.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •