Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/viewing-child-pornography-not-crime-according-york-court-165025919.html

i don't wanna live in this planet anymore..

I agree with that ruling.


You must show an active approach to it, not just running across it. If you have surfed four chan (that was done intentionally), then you may be just as guilty as that professor. I think the courts need to show an active attempt to pursue it. Not just it showing up in your browsing history.


I bet you that I could find that stuff on a significant portion of people's computers with a bit of bit-layer analysis. The extreme majority of people would not be at fault, imo. The point of a court is to show people to be guilty. Just simply having it in your history is not enough to prove mens rea, in my opinion.

I partially agree with you, but I found this to be a bit disturbing:

"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."

Seems like you have to download and store the image for it to be a crime. So in theory one could search online for child-porn, but not download/store it and it's not a crime. IMO, actively searching for CP(and finding) should be a crime.

Unless I'm reading the ruling wrong?

Post the porn or it didnt happen.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
Post the porn or it didnt happen.

Trying to add to your collection?

So really this law is "making or seeking out child porn is a crime but having a virus or misleading link put it on your computer is not". I want to live on this planet anymore.

This makes me think of a great Doug Stanhope quote.

"Child Pornography is the only crime illegal to see caught on tape. Every other crime caught on tape - hit television show!"

The current top comment on that article is interesting:



If someone decides to email you picture of an underage person in a sexual or undressed state, before this ruling you could be charged with possession of child porn just for opening the email (not knowing what it was), even if you immediately deleted it.

I had a friend going through a nasty divorce and child custody battle. His soon to be ex (we believe) sent him several pictures using what appeared to be an email address that one of his children had, with the subject line "my soccer game". When he saw the pictures he deleted them immediately and then called me. I told him to bring me the computer, and replaced the hard drive. I reinstalled the OS and put his programs back on the computer. I them installed the hard drive in a different computer and ran a "wash" program on it, so that the data could not be recovered.

Two days later he had federal agents at his door with a search warrant for child porn. The took his laptop, and after 6 weeks returned it seeing as they found nothing.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
The current top comment on that article is interesting:



If someone decides to email you picture of an underage person in a sexual or undressed state, before this ruling you could be charged with possession of child porn just for opening the email (not knowing what it was), even if you immediately deleted it.

I had a friend going through a nasty divorce and child custody battle. His soon to be ex (we believe) sent him several pictures using what appeared to be an email address that one of his children had, with the subject line "my soccer game". When he saw the pictures he deleted them immediately and then called me. I told him to bring me the computer, and replaced the hard drive. I reinstalled the OS and put his programs back on the computer. I them installed the hard drive in a different computer and ran a "wash" program on it, so that the data could not be recovered.

Two days later he had federal agents at his door with a search warrant for child porn. The took his laptop, and after 6 weeks returned it seeing as they found nothing.

lol


And unless his wife was onion-proxy-ing it up with proxy servers that clear the cache quite often, she's in a load of trouble.

LOL

Who would want to see child porn? I just saw this article on someone's Facebook profile. Disgusting.

what was the article about??

And as for child porn... yes that is gross.

Has there already been an RJ joke made?

Originally posted by The Big O
Who would want to see child porn?

Spies looking for material they can use to blackmail a valuable asset.

I partially agree with the ruling.

But I think the defendant was guilty.

He had 100 pics of child porno on the hard drive, which leads me to believe that he was intentionally visiting child porno sites.

It's disgusting, but I don't see why if you allow for people to watch adult women being raped or brutally tortured or murdered in video or images, why the same doesn't apply to children.

In fact you can watch children brutally tortured or murdered in video, as far as I can recall, legal.

Creating child porn should obviously be punished if it involves crime. That is assuming we're not talking of non-abuse produced child porn(legal marriage videos in other countries of minors, minors sexting, old hollywood films, etc), and overall nudist images, nudist families should have a right for family photos.


As far as I can tell it is mere persecution for being part of a minority having a sexual disorder. Putting someone in the sex offender registry for life, such that they can't be employed and sometimes have to live under bridges, etc as homeless is ridiculous. Years in jail for having mere pictures is ridiculous, pictures, digital pictures are nothing more than binary numbers. Regardless it is often friends and family members that commit the actual abuse, if i recall the statistics correctly, not the odd stranger.

girls who are 17 are considered child porn. its not neccasarily 4 or 5 year olds or something

Which is weird considering that the age of consent for sex is 16 in this country. But by God don't take a picture of them.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Which is weird considering that the age of consent for sex is 16 in this country. But by God don't take a picture of them.

There is no one age of consent in the United States since it exists entirely at a state level, though 16 is the most common age. The federal government happens to define a minor as a person under 18 which means that if they get involved that is the law that applies.

I agree that sex laws can be extremely strange. A bondage photographer in Britain was brought up on criminal charges which stemmed from a law that made it illegal for him to publish photographs of the models unless he also had sex with them.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
There is no one age of consent in the United States since it exists entirely at a state level, though 16 is the most common age. The federal government happens to define a minor as a person under 18 which means that if they get involved that is the law that applies. Caaaaanawdaw...

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Caaaaanawdaw...

Its a thread about New York. How was I supposed to know you were talking about Canada?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Its a thread about New York. How was I supposed to know you were talking about Canada?

You're supposed to be a creeper, like me, and remember a couple of years back that he said he was from Canada and THEN ignore the context of the thread, entirely, to conclude that every time he says 'this country' he means the Motherland: O Canada.

Exactly. Sym, if you're not going to indulge my narcissistic delusion, then you can just git out.