>> 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—viewing—that 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

>Of course he wouldn't.  No liberal professor would ever view child porn.  
>Right?

>http://www.dukechronicle.com/article/lombard-gets-27-years-child-sex-...
>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—a 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’s 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.