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

[kramer]

Originally Posted by VeintiSiete

Originally Posted by milestailsprowe

Its not that bad. Its a law that basically says that if you "accidently" see something you shouldn't online your fine as long as your not saving/spreading it.

i have to quote this because I know for a fact most of you wont even bother reading the article.

As long as its for this purpose its whatever

 

[bobbytripledigits]

Originally Posted by King of Chicago

Originally Posted by bobbytripledigits

Let me reiterate:
How many of you have "accidentally" brushed across child pornography on the Internet?

Just "accidentally" found some right now.

Wow. That's all. Wow.

 

[bobbytripledigits]

Originally Posted by Regis

Think of it like this....

Many times transgendered porn (shemales) gets filtered through to the straight porn section. After years of browsing through straight porn on your computer you're bound to have a few dozen images of a transgendered male getting his back blown out (I can't be the only one who thought they were looking at a pretty new starlet only to find out she has a penis when looking at the previews).

There's no way to tell who's intentionally looking for it and who accidentally stumbled upon it unless they're downloading/saving images.
Remember that for someone to be guilty in a court of law the prosecution must prove BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT.

For the time being just having pics in your cache doesn't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt.

What does stumbling upon transgender porn have ANYTHING to do with stumbling upon child porn?! Blown away (no pun intended!)

 

[goldenchild9]

In the age of cloud computing, increased broad band speed and all-stream everything...having to download files and printing images is becoming a rare occurrence.

As usual the government is behind the tech curve.

Pedophiles just got legal protection.

Millions of children will be harmed because of this ruling.

But off course to the porn/pedobear generation, just like everything else, "its not that bad..."

 

[thedeek]

First thing I thought of was /b/

 

[moonmaster3]

Originally Posted by Regis

Think of it like this....

Many times transgendered porn (shemales) gets filtered through to the straight porn section. After years of browsing through straight porn on your computer you're bound to have a few dozen images of a transgendered male getting his back blown out (I can't be the only one who thought they were looking at a pretty new starlet only to find out she has a penis when looking at the previews).

There's no way to tell who's intentionally looking for it and who accidentally stumbled upon it unless they're downloading/saving images.
Remember that for someone to be guilty in a court of law the prosecution must prove BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT.

For the time being just having pics in your cache doesn't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt.

It's not beyond a shadow of a doubt. It's beyond a reasonable doubt. 

 

[milestailsprowe]

Originally Posted by bobbytripledigits

To everyone commenting that it's not as bad as it sounds... 
wait what?

First of all, do you know the volitional, intentional steps it takes to seek out and browse child pornography?  That material's not just out there flashing across Google Image searches or Tumblr scrolls.

I have been actively using the Internet for almost 2 decades now and I've not once seen anything remotely of that nature. How many of you have "accidentally" swept across sexualized imagery of naked kids? I'm sorry, say that I'm judging, but this is abhorrent.

Merely "viewing" child porn attributes unique eyeballs on those sites, which means they garner support and potential financial bolstering.

This is crazy.

Yes this is true. You have to truly be looking for it too find but throughout my forum browsezing (not 4chan) I have seen people post such things as a joke and what not. Those post have been taken down quickly and user banned but things happen. 

 

[sleaze jar omens]

Originally Posted by frostythepoptart

Originally Posted by VeintiSiete

Originally Posted by milestailsprowe

Its not that bad. Its a law that basically says that if you "accidently" see something you shouldn't online your fine as long as your not saving/spreading it.

i have to quote this because I know for a fact most of you wont even bother reading the article.

/b/

Honestly you can come across the wrong things online by accident all of the time.

dis right here.

 

[crunchyblack9]

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

 

[sleaze jar omens]

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.

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

 

[night marcher01]

Originally Posted by Sleaze Jar Omens

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.

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?

 

[quik1987]

 

[mangudai954]

Originally Posted by VeintiSiete

Originally Posted by milestailsprowe

Its not that bad. Its a law that basically says that if you "accidently" see something you shouldn't online your fine as long as your not saving/spreading it.

i have to quote this because I know for a fact most of you wont even bother reading the article.

 

[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. 

 

[crunchyblack9]

Originally Posted by Sleaze Jar Omens

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.

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

I guess thats where my computer literacy stops. 

 

[executive76]

Some of you seem to think a person can automatically tell it's "child porn" by simply looking...there have been a quite a few videos that hit the net where the females age was in question. 
If she is 17 and lied about her age how can the viewer know?

 

[gllahone84]

Swear I've never watched child porn in my life...smh.

Sick $%@+# out here man.

 

[regis]

Originally Posted by Executive76

Some of you seem to think a person can automatically tell it's "child porn" by simply looking...there have been a quite a few videos that hit the net where the females age was in question. 
If she is 17 and lied about her age how can the viewer know?

Word to the mount st Ursula pron chick.

 

[mentecriminal]

Originally Posted by Regis

Originally Posted by Executive76

Some of you seem to think a person can automatically tell it's "child porn" by simply looking...there have been a quite a few videos that hit the net where the females age was in question. 
If she is 17 and lied about her age how can the viewer know?

Word to the mount st Ursula pron chick.

Word to Amber Cole

 

[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. 

 

[airthompson]

NY pedos are rejoycing.

 

[sleaze jar omens]

Originally Posted by Night Marcher01

Originally Posted by Sleaze Jar Omens

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.

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.

 

[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.

 

[no stackson]

Originally Posted by goldenchild9

As usual the government is behind the tech curve.

You couldn't be more wrong. But that's an unrelated topic.

 

[goldenchild9]

Originally Posted by No Stackson

Originally Posted by goldenchild9

As usual the government is behind the tech curve.

You couldn't be more wrong. But that's an unrelated topic.

I'm talking about as far as legal rulings and public policy.
Of course the CIA/FBI/Defense etc. is at the cutting edge. 

As far as the ruling, couldn't they have just said the "intentional viewing" of child porn is illegal, leaving the door open for case by case judgement and an eventual precedence to develop?

Why legalize all viewing?

Kinda crazy.