Viewing child pornography online not a crime: New York court ruling

[executive76]

Originally Posted by gllahone84

If a chick is 17 that's a stretch to say the least, and doesn't child porn usually involve young children with grown men? I don't know but I've watched teen porn, and the chicks seemed to be almost legal.

Child porn can be a 16 yr old sending a naked pic to another 16 yr old. Not just a small children being exploited which is what most think as seen by the narrow minded responses in this thread
In a lot main stream teen porn the chicks are older they just look like teens.

 

[frostythepoptart]

Originally Posted by Sleaze Jar Omens

Originally Posted by Night Marcher01

Originally Posted by Sleaze Jar Omens


you dont have to click it for it to save to your cache.

I always get you and moonmaster mixed up!

Is that the same girl in both of ya avy?

yeah that's Boxxy, b.

the queen.

 

[gambit215]

Originally Posted by CrunchyBlack9

Originally Posted by RustyShackleford

Originally Posted by CrunchyBlack9

I felt dirty for even clicking on the thread. I still dont see how you can accidentally click on this stuff.

For example: You're on a forum, someone post a link to the new Dark Knight trailer, you click the link, but it was a prank and you get sent to a child porn link. 

I get that, but thats a rare situation. At least in my experiences. I dont click on links unless I know its trusted anyways. The pron I go to is mapped and layed out. Idiot friendly if you will. 

 

 

[no stackson]

Originally Posted by MenteCriminal

Amber Cole

lol. Just type that name in on Google and see how many YouTube comedians admit to watching it.

They weren't looking to get their rocks off to it, it was trending at the time so people wanted to see what the topic was about.

Now clearly, they knew it was child porn, but there's an obvious difference between that and someone looking to get pleasure from it.

Also, how many times have you come across some weird %%*++% up %!#$ on /b/ or 4Chan

 

[odog24]

 

[sleaze jar omens]

Originally Posted by No Stackson

Originally Posted by MenteCriminal

Amber Cole

lol. Just type that name in on Google and see how many YouTube comedians admit to watching it.

They weren't looking to get their rocks off to it, it was trending at the time so people wanted to see what the topic was about.

Now clearly, they knew it was child porn, but there's an obvious difference between that and someone looking to get pleasure from it.

Also, how many times have you come across some weird %%*++% up %!#$ on /b/ or 4Chan

is that a real argument?

 

[crunchyblack9]

Originally Posted by gambit215

Originally Posted by CrunchyBlack9

Originally Posted by RustyShackleford

For example: You're on a forum, someone post a link to the new Dark Knight trailer, you click the link, but it was a prank and you get sent to a child porn link. 

I get that, but thats a rare situation. At least in my experiences. I dont click on links unless I know its trusted anyways. The pron I go to is mapped and layed out. Idiot friendly if you will. 

 

If you only knew. Its broken down to categories and sub categories and even those subcategories have categories. If you gotta be doing all that crazy searching you doin it wrong. 

 

[Shanegerous]

Strongly disagree with this.

 

[weekz]

It makes sense if you're objective about it. The viewer so long as he was not involved in the production or distribution of the content should not be at fault. It's creepy as hell but it makes sense. He's just viewing someone else's work (and I use the term work really loosely). I understand why people would be beyond upset at this ruling but if every law and decision was based on gut feeling and emotion we would not have a functioning society.

 

[no stackson]

Originally Posted by Sleaze Jar Omens

Originally Posted by No Stackson

Originally Posted by MenteCriminal

Amber Cole

lol. Just type that name in on Google and see how many YouTube comedians admit to watching it.

They weren't looking to get their rocks off to it, it was trending at the time so people wanted to see what the topic was about.

Now clearly, they knew it was child porn, but there's an obvious difference between that and someone looking to get pleasure from it.

Also, how many times have you come across some weird %%*++% up %!#$ on /b/ or 4Chan

is that a real argument?

Don't matter to me either way, I'm a minor.

I'm just saying, prison would be filled with alot of nonviolent offenders if every dude who watched one of those "Amber Cole" type videos got time.

 

[4318michaeljohnson4318]

if you dont understand this you are a complete idiot

what they are doing is giving guidelines to these crimes. this is making sure we get those who are actively in the community with solid proof. yes this will allow the low level viewers be away from persecution but cut the head and the body will fall.

 

[6 Rings G.O.A.T.]

They should be ashamed of themselves..

 

[murdamiljoker]

All the people who voted are probably perverts there damn self

 

[gambit215]

Originally Posted by CrunchyBlack9

Originally Posted by gambit215

Originally Posted by CrunchyBlack9

I get that, but thats a rare situation. At least in my experiences. I dont click on links unless I know its trusted anyways. The pron I go to is mapped and layed out. Idiot friendly if you will. 

If you only knew. Its broken down to categories and sub categories and even those subcategories have categories. If you gotta be doing all that crazy searching you doin it wrong. 

.

 

[nako xl]

it's clear 2/3 of the people in this thread don't understand how the law or court rulings work.

no one "voted" on this.

the law is to put a stop to frivolous prosecutions.  with a mandatory minimum just for possession (and your browser cache considered possession) people can carry out vendetta prosecutions just by telling law enforcement you visit 4chan (where you WILL accidentally stumble on all sorts of horrible things, whether or not you click on them.)

 

[pharelfor3]

Originally Posted by Nako XL

it's clear 2/3 of the people in this thread don't understand how the law or court rulings work.

no one "voted" on this.

the law is to put a stop to frivolous prosecutions.  with a mandatory minimum just for possession (and your browser cache considered possession) people can carry out vendetta prosecutions just by telling law enforcement you visit 4chan (where you WILL accidentally stumble on all sorts of horrible things, whether or not you click on them.)

Just a protection in place for accidental viewing. With that said, i'm never going to a tech spot to repair my computer. My bro is a pro at that and will never snitch on me.
  

 

[BranchLifestyle]

anything under 18 is considered child porn right?

 

[Sam Darnold Heisman #8]

no wonder vampedo lives in nyc