ny court rules viewing child porn not a crime

3551399_460s.jpg
 
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.

^ that is the main holding and issue.
 
Yurt said:
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.

^ that is the main holding and issue.
Click to expand...

i believe i addressed that in my op

however, it is a legal determination - there does need to be a law apparently

the subject tends to bring out the irrational in me :(
 
Yurt said:
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.

^ that is the main holding and issue.
Click to expand...
this is one of my issues with the courts. It should not be their purview to tell the government how to turn a despicable act in to a punishable crime. they would never deign to give this kind of advice to a citizen defendant.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
this is one of my issues with the courts. It should not be their purview to tell the government how to turn a despicable act in to a punishable crime. they would never deign to give this kind of advice to a citizen defendant.
Click to expand...

but, here and in most courts, they are not telling the government to do anything. they left it up to the government. the issue solely is that NY apparently has not criminalized the viewing of child pornography on the internet. i find that bizarre and believe it probably violates federal law. but i really don't know that much about child porn law.
 
As the judgement states the pages are automatically cached once one visits the page. One would be guilty just by clicking on a link and we all know links can be misleading in emails and advertisements. The court really didn't have any logical choice but to do what it did.
 
apple0154 said:
As the judgement states the pages are automatically cached once one visits the page. One would be guilty just by clicking on a link and we all know links can be misleading in emails and advertisements. The court really didn't have any logical choice but to do what it did.
Click to expand...

that is true....but this guy had hundreds...that isn't very likely a mistake.
 
Yurt said:
but, here and in most courts, they are not telling the government to do anything. they left it up to the government. the issue solely is that NY apparently has not criminalized the viewing of child pornography on the internet. i find that bizarre and believe it probably violates federal law. but i really don't know that much about child porn law.
Click to expand...
WTF???

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.
Click to expand...

this is the court telling the legislator 'this wasn't a crime and this is why'. that's for all intent and purposes telling the legislature how to create a criminal statute for the conviction they just voided.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
WTF???



this is the court telling the legislator 'this wasn't a crime and this is why'. that's for all intent and purposes telling the legislature how to create a criminal statute for the conviction they just voided.
Click to expand...

that is the role of the court, to advise on legal matters. they don't have to craft legislation this way, they don't even have to craft any legislation. why is it harmful for the courts to offer suggestions that would likely uphold judicial scrutiny?
 
Yurt said:
that is the role of the court, to advise on legal matters. they don't have to craft legislation this way, they don't even have to craft any legislation. why is it harmful for the courts to offer suggestions that would likely uphold judicial scrutiny?
Click to expand...
that's what lawyers are for, not judges. especially because those same judges would not do the same for a citizen defendant. it's blatant partiality which brings in to question their ability to render fair judgements and should be cause for impeachment.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
that's what lawyers are for, not judges. especially because those same judges would not do the same for a citizen defendant. it's blatant partiality which brings in to question their ability to render fair judgements and should be cause for impeachment.
Click to expand...

they do it for defendants all the time. in both criminal and civil. i think it is great that judges offer suggestions. especially from a higher court. if you craft the new law using their guidelines, it is likely to withstand scrutiny.
 
Yurt said:
they do it for defendants all the time. in both criminal and civil. i think it is great that judges offer suggestions. especially from a higher court. if you craft the new law using their guidelines, it is likely to withstand scrutiny.
Click to expand...
forgive me, but i need cites. I have yet to read a federal court or an upper state court provide criminal defense advice to a defendant or their lawyer.
 
Damocles said:
With the making of child porn there is a victim, giving its audience legitimacy endorses the victimization of children. It is not okay, this was the wrong decision.
Click to expand...

Okay, that was my original knee jerk reaction. Now I see more what they are saying...

What if you are searching the web, clicking links and one of them is that crap. Your image cache will have it, but you didn't seek it out or want it.

Me, I'd report that sh*t immediately if that happened to me...
 
SmarterthanYou said:
forgive me, but i need cites. I have yet to read a federal court or an upper state court provide criminal defense advice to a defendant or their lawyer.
Click to expand...

i don't even remember which case...but where i've seen it has been in superior court more than appellate. there is a difference when dealing with defendants at the lower level than the upper level and governments. i really believe you're making an issue over something that is really a non-issue. if you read contract cases, the courts often spell out what would have made the contract valid etc....that is the same thing as the court offering advice to the legislature.
 
Damocles said:
Okay, that was my original knee jerk reaction. Now I see more what they are saying...

What if you are searching the web, clicking links and one of them is that crap. Your image cache will have it, but you didn't seek it out or want it.

Me, I'd report that sh*t immediately if that happened to me...
Click to expand...

I remember the First time my mother clicked on a porn site by accident, it was hilarious.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top