• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,576
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Viewing child pornography not a crime according to New York court ruling

Viewing child pornography online not a crime: New York court ruling | The Sideshow - Yahoo! News
I bet this will change pretty quick...

Quote from article:
"The court said it must be up to the legislature, not the courts, to determine what the appropriate response should be to those viewing images of child pornography without actually storing them. Currently, New York's legislature has no laws deeming such action criminal."
 
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.

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.
 
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.

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.
I don't know, kinda sounds like it was an appropriate ruling.
Thinking logically, not emotionally, I agree. But... if there ever was/is an emotional issue, it is child pornography, and the emotion will cause this "loophole" to be closed and quick.

I don't know how the New York Legislature works, but if they're not in session right now, I bet a bill gets introduced with 30 days of the next session starting. And 30 days is on the long end.
 
Thinking logically, not emotionally, I agree. But... if there ever was/is an emotional issue, it is child pornography, and the emotion will cause this "loophole" to be closed and quick.

I don't know how the New York Legislature works, but if they're not in session right now, I bet a bill gets introduced with 30 days of the next session starting. And 30 days is on the long end.

Drunk driving, child pornography, child molestation, etc. are all examples of issues made into almost entirely emotional arguments in order to stop thinking and encourage excessive punishment.
 
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.

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.

Do you think it's only creating it that should be a crime? How about possessing it or selling it.
 
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.

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.
This is what makes me support the ruling. There's so much crap all over the internet that innocent people are likely to click on rogue links once in a while and they should not be prosecuted. The same is true for downloading, but I think that's a much less likely scenario so I'm find with actual downloads being illegal. Beyond that, only creating and distributing child porn should be illegal.
 
Beyond that, only creating and distributing child porn should be illegal.

I agree on everything you've said but I think ownership should be illegal as well. Not viewing...but if you have 20 folders of child pornography I think it's obvious you didn't accidently click a link.
 
This is what makes me support the ruling. There's so much crap all over the internet that innocent people are likely to click on rogue links once in a while and they should not be prosecuted. The same is true for downloading, but I think that's a much less likely scenario so I'm find with actual downloads being illegal. Beyond that, only creating and distributing child porn should be illegal.
There have been cases where people have had their computers remotely hi-jacked and used as servers for illegal activity... and they never knew about it until they were charged with the crimes.
 
you think child molesters receive excessive punishments?

There are certainly overpunishments involved and the automatic sentencing and listings can catch people up who are innocent as well. In general automatic punishments are a bad idea, there is a judge for a reason.
 
There are certainly overpunishments involved and the automatic sentencing and listings can catch people up who are innocent as well. In general automatic punishments are a bad idea, there is a judge for a reason.

Ah, but at the same time, if punishments are too different, people claim that's a result of discrimination, etc.
 
you think child molesters receive excessive punishments?
I would categorize lumping the 19 yr old boy with a 16 yr old girlfriend, or the drunken 21 yr old college student who urinated in public, in with actual child molesters who actually molest children and categorizing them as such on public lists as excessive punishment, yes. And it's all due to unnecessary and wrongheaded emotionalism instead of a logical and reasonable thought process.
 
I would categorize lumping the 19 yr old boy with a 16 yr old girlfriend, or the drunken 21 yr old college student who urinated in public, in with actual child molesters who actually molest children and categorizing them as such on public lists as excessive punishment, yes. And it's all due to unnecessary and wrongheaded emotionalism instead of a logical and reasonable thought process.
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 would categorize lumping the 19 yr old boy with a 16 yr old girlfriend, or the drunken 21 yr old college student who urinated in public, in with actual child molesters who actually molest children and categorizing them as such on public lists as excessive punishment, yes. And it's all due to unnecessary and wrongheaded emotionalism instead of a logical and reasonable thought process.

Ill give you that. 19 with a 16 year old is wrong, but i dont think that is molestation. I think that is statutory rape. Difference I believe.
 
Do you think it's only creating it that should be a crime? How about possessing it or selling it.

Also crimes. Purchasing also, it furthers the "trade."

Ill give you that. 19 with a 16 year old is wrong, but i dont think that is molestation. I think that is statutory rape. Difference I believe.

It's not even statutory rape in every state, but it will permanently land you on the sex offenders list. Forty years later, that guy has to inform his new neighbors that he's a sex offender, as far as I understand it. Or employers. Might as well tattoo a scarlet A on their foreheads. Yeah, that I'd say is excessive.
 
you think child molesters receive excessive punishments?

They are sentenced and then have their rights restricted after their release. Yeah, I would call that excessive.
 
I like to surf image boards like 4chan. Sometimes there are douche bag, pedophiles who post child porn on them. The moderators delete it and report it to the police but the images could be stored in my cache without me ever even seeing them and then I could go to prison for 5 years for simply browsing the internet. The same could be said of Google image searches. This has always been a concern of mine and I am happy to see it finally be addressed.
 
you think child molesters receive excessive punishments?

Considering the law sees an 18yo with a 15yo girlfriend and a 50yo with a 15yo girl as exactly the same, yes I do think in some instances they get excessive punishments. I also think that excessive punishments are handed down in child porn cases.

When someone possessing (not producing, not distributing, not selling) a few images of child porn can spend more time in prison than someone convicted of 1st degree murder that made their first parole date, yes, I have a problem with that. If you want to know exactly how that can and does happen, I'd be more than happy to get into more detail.

Not to mention when a murderer is released they are allowed to live anywhere they want to and not notify neighbors, not have their names and faces in the local paper, not have their faces addresses and all personal information on sex offender websites, etc etc. But the 18yo having sex with his high school sweetheart a couple of years his junior, he is labeled for life and will never be able to go to his childrens school functions, etc. 20 years from now his website will say "Victim age 15" making him look like a 50yo man who was messing with a little girl. Most people don't give a rats ass how long ago the conviction was.

If you dont think that is excessive, then YOU my friend, might just be hopeless.
 
Last edited:
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 agree with everything you said, with the exception of what I highlighted.


I think sex offender registries are in need of a major overhaul, but shouldn't be eliminated. In my opinion, those registries should be strictly for sexual predators, not for indiscretions or matters of the heart. What I mean by "predator", as it pertains to sexual contact with a minor, is men who are sexually attracted to, and actively seek out, under aged girls for the purpose of fostering intimate relationships with them. That is wrong and anyone who knowingly seeks out such relationships, is a danger to any community they reside in.


What I object to are men being put on a sex offenders list in cases where they were charged with a crime that stemmed from a consensual relationship, that was not the product of predatory behavior, where no abuse took place (sexual or otherwise), and had the blessing of the families involved. I don't care if the man is say 32 and the girl is 16, as long as all of the above is true, your dealing with a 2 people who have (or had) intimate feelings for one another, trying to make a go of it. I would say that such relationships are ill advised and rarely stand the test of time, but that doesn't make him a predator that deserves to be branded a sexual deviant and a threat to society.
 
Last edited:
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...


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:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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:
Back
Top Bottom