Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Homosexuals celebrate! Viewing child pornography online not a crime: New York court ruling
6 views
Skip to first unread message
Benny Frank
May 11, 2012, 6:03:30 PM5/11/12
to
Marist College...a culture dish of liberal disease
indoctrination if there ever was one.
In a controversial decision that is already sparking debate
around the country, the New York Court of Appeals ruled on
Tuesday that viewing child pornography online is not a crime.
"The purposeful viewing of child pornography on the internet is
now legal in New York," Senior Judge Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick
wrote in a majority decision for the court.
The decision came after Marist College professor James D. Kent
was sentenced to prison in August 2009 after more than 100
images of child pornography were found on his computer's cache.
Whenever someone views an image online, a copy of the image's
data is saved in the computer's memory cache.
The ruling attempts to distinguish between individuals who see
an image of child pornography online versus those who actively
download and store such images, MSNBC reports. And in this case,
it was ruled that a computer's image cache is not the same as
actively choosing to download and save an image.
"Merely viewing Web images of child pornography does not, absent
other proof, constitute either possession or procurement within
the meaning of our Penal Law," Ciparick wrote in the decision.
See a copy of the court's full ruling on the child pornography
decision.
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.
As The Atlantic Wire notes, under current New York law, "it is
illegal to create, possess, distribute, promote or facilitate
child pornography." But that leaves out one critical
distinction, as Judge Ciparick stated in the court's decision.
"[S]ome 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,"
Ciparick wrote. "To hold otherwise, would extend the reach of
(state law) to conduct要iewing葉hat our Legislature has not
deemed criminal."
The case originated when Kent brought his computer in to be
checked for viruses, complaining that it was running slowly. He
has subsequently denied downloading the images himself.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/viewing-child-pornography-
not-crime-according-york-court-165025919.html
indoctrination if there ever was one.
In a controversial decision that is already sparking debate
around the country, the New York Court of Appeals ruled on
Tuesday that viewing child pornography online is not a crime.
"The purposeful viewing of child pornography on the internet is
now legal in New York," Senior Judge Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick
wrote in a majority decision for the court.
The decision came after Marist College professor James D. Kent
was sentenced to prison in August 2009 after more than 100
images of child pornography were found on his computer's cache.
Whenever someone views an image online, a copy of the image's
data is saved in the computer's memory cache.
The ruling attempts to distinguish between individuals who see
an image of child pornography online versus those who actively
download and store such images, MSNBC reports. And in this case,
it was ruled that a computer's image cache is not the same as
actively choosing to download and save an image.
"Merely viewing Web images of child pornography does not, absent
other proof, constitute either possession or procurement within
the meaning of our Penal Law," Ciparick wrote in the decision.
See a copy of the court's full ruling on the child pornography
decision.
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.
As The Atlantic Wire notes, under current New York law, "it is
illegal to create, possess, distribute, promote or facilitate
child pornography." But that leaves out one critical
distinction, as Judge Ciparick stated in the court's decision.
"[S]ome 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,"
Ciparick wrote. "To hold otherwise, would extend the reach of
(state law) to conduct要iewing葉hat our Legislature has not
deemed criminal."
The case originated when Kent brought his computer in to be
checked for viruses, complaining that it was running slowly. He
has subsequently denied downloading the images himself.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/viewing-child-pornography-
not-crime-according-york-court-165025919.html
Ron Weinberg
May 11, 2012, 10:55:30 PM5/11/12
to
On 11 May 2012, "Benny Frank" <benny...@shaw.ca> posted some
news:f9cfe673ff13b1a1...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net:
Democrats the world over are busy beating off and looking at children
being molested tonight.
news:f9cfe673ff13b1a1...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net:
being molested tonight.
John Baker
May 12, 2012, 4:07:38 AM5/12/12
to
On Sat, 12 May 2012 02:55:30 +0000 (UTC), Ron Weinberg
<inv...@not-for-mail.invalid> wrote:
>
>Democrats the world over are busy beating off and looking at children
>being molested tonight.
And yet the politicians getting busted for soliciting sex from
<inv...@not-for-mail.invalid> wrote:
>
>Democrats the world over are busy beating off and looking at children
>being molested tonight.
underaged partners are almost all Republicans.
Project much?
>
John Baker
May 12, 2012, 4:10:46 AM5/12/12
to
On Sat, 12 May 2012 00:03:30 +0200, "Benny Frank" <benny...@shaw.ca>
wrote:
<snip>
Statistically the vast majority of kiddie fuckers are conservative
Republicans - which comes as no surprise. After all, everyone prefers
sex partners who are intellectually compatible.
wrote:
<snip>
Statistically the vast majority of kiddie fuckers are conservative
Republicans - which comes as no surprise. After all, everyone prefers
sex partners who are intellectually compatible.
Obwon
May 12, 2012, 9:03:36 AM5/12/12
to
>Marist College...a culture dish of liberal disease
>indoctrination if there ever was one.
>
>In a controversial decision that is already sparking debate
>around the country, the New York Court of Appeals ruled on
>Tuesday that viewing child pornography online is not a crime.
>
>"The purposeful viewing of child pornography on the internet is
>now legal in New York," Senior Judge Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick
>wrote in a majority decision for the court.
>
>The decision came after Marist College professor James D. Kent
>was sentenced to prison in August 2009 after more than 100
>images of child pornography were found on his computer's cache.
>
>Whenever someone views an image online, a copy of the image's
>data is saved in the computer's memory cache.
>
>The ruling attempts to distinguish between individuals who see
>an image of child pornography online versus those who actively
>download and store such images, MSNBC reports. And in this case,
>it was ruled that a computer's image cache is not the same as
>actively choosing to download and save an image.
>
>"Merely viewing Web images of child pornography does not, absent
>other proof, constitute either possession or procurement within
>the meaning of our Penal Law," Ciparick wrote in the decision.
Which is true! Or haven't you ever heard of "spam",
>indoctrination if there ever was one.
>
>In a controversial decision that is already sparking debate
>around the country, the New York Court of Appeals ruled on
>Tuesday that viewing child pornography online is not a crime.
>
>"The purposeful viewing of child pornography on the internet is
>now legal in New York," Senior Judge Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick
>wrote in a majority decision for the court.
>
>The decision came after Marist College professor James D. Kent
>was sentenced to prison in August 2009 after more than 100
>images of child pornography were found on his computer's cache.
>
>Whenever someone views an image online, a copy of the image's
>data is saved in the computer's memory cache.
>
>The ruling attempts to distinguish between individuals who see
>an image of child pornography online versus those who actively
>download and store such images, MSNBC reports. And in this case,
>it was ruled that a computer's image cache is not the same as
>actively choosing to download and save an image.
>
>"Merely viewing Web images of child pornography does not, absent
>other proof, constitute either possession or procurement within
>the meaning of our Penal Law," Ciparick wrote in the decision.
"hacking" and such?
People get your email address all the time, while others
simply "guess" it. Where they take an isp's name and
simply add random prefixes to it, like Jo...@aol.com
to create mass mailing lists. They can then send millions
of emails out, and many of them reach real targets.
So, should you be liable for viewing child porno, simply
because you received such email? What about hacked
websites? What about redirects? What about typing
errors that may take you somewhere you don't want to be by
mistake? The web isn't like a library where you have to
actively choose the content you see. There are ways to
force content onto you. Should you be liable for viewing
such content? I think not.
baynole
May 14, 2012, 6:28:54 PM5/14/12
to
Note that the FBI might not necessarily agree.
abelincoln
May 15, 2012, 12:31:36 AM5/15/12
to
In article <6468bd09113910fdd89fa7e45d992439@not-for-
mail.invalid>
Obama is burning up computers looking at kiddy porn in the FBI
files. That's what those blacks do. Drugs, kiddy porn and they
take dicks up their assholes.
mail.invalid>
files. That's what those blacks do. Drugs, kiddy porn and they
take dicks up their assholes.
Obwon
May 15, 2012, 10:11:43 AM5/15/12
to
On Mon, 14 May 2012 15:28:54 -0700 (PDT), baynole
<bay...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Note that the FBI might not necessarily agree.
So you think they'll bring cases they can't win in a court
<bay...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Note that the FBI might not necessarily agree.
of law? Why would they do that?
Pretty nearly everyone's computer may have child porn in
either the cach or the recycle bin, that is not evidence
that you are a pedo. Since it may equally be an indication
that you've recieved unwanted material. Are you trying to
say that a good case can be made, based on material the
subject deleted?
Doug Canner
May 15, 2012, 3:16:01 PM5/15/12
to
On 11 May 2012, "Benny Frank" <benny...@shaw.ca> posted some
news:f9cfe673ff13b1a1...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net:
news:f9cfe673ff13b1a1...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net:
Right?
http://www.dukechronicle.com/article/lombard-gets-27-years-child-sex-abus
e
Former Duke employee Frank Lombard was sentenced to 27 years in prison
for child sex charges Monday.
Previously the associate director for the Health Inequalities Program at
the Center for Heath Policy, Lombard was sentenced in a Washington, D.C.
courtroom this week after pleading guilty in December to sexual
exploitation of a minor預 charge that carries a maximum sentence of 30
years, WRAL reported Tuesday.
The former professor was arrested in June during an Internet sting
conducted jointly by the FBI and the Metropolitan Police Department for
the District of Columbia痴 Child Exploitation Task Force.
According to an affidavit filed by the undercover officer, Lombard
offered the officer the opportunity to have sex with his five-year-old
adopted son in an online chat. In his plea deal in December, Lombard
also admitted to live streaming pornographic images of himself and his
son on the Internet, the (Raleigh) News & Observer reported Tuesday.
Lombard, an employee at Duke for 10 years, was placed on administrative
leave by the University soon after his arrest and was fired in July.
Obwon
May 16, 2012, 8:55:18 AM5/16/12
to
merely ruled that, material that could wind up on a
computer without your consent, could not be used to support
a charge, all by itself.
Don't you wonder what they'll find if you take your computer
in for service? Suppose they run file recovery software on
your computer? Pulling up files that perhaps the previous
owner deleted and thought they'd wiped. Without this
ruling, anyone who owns a computer could probably be
charged with child porn possession, even without being the
least bit interested in it.
0 new messages