Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Child porn now legal in New York

  • 09-05-2012 11:48PM
    #1
    Sir Digby Chicken Caesar
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,554 ✭✭✭✭


    http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/05/09/viewing-child-porn-on-the-web-now-legal-in-new-york/
    Viewing child porn online is no longer a crime in the state of New York, following a ruling from the New York Court of Appeals on Tuesday.

    The court’s decision hinged on the fact that the images were not downloaded, only viewed. The court ruled that it cannot prove possession of an image that was automatically stored in the computer’s cache without the owner of the computer’s consent.



    ummmm..... giggity?


«13

Comments

  • #2
    Praetorian Saighdiuir
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,968 ✭✭✭✭Praetorian Saighdiuir


    Stupid sexy kids!

    The sex offender locator in NYC will be brighter thatn the Sun soon.


  • #3
    FoxT
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,204 ✭✭✭FoxT


    As internet surveillance techniques (& laws) become more comprehensive, this loophole will ultimately be closed off, I expect. (and hope..)


  • #4
    IM0
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,390 ✭✭✭IM0


    wtf :confused:


  • #5
    golden lane
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,364 ✭✭✭golden lane


    Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »
    http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/05/09/viewing-child-porn-on-the-web-now-legal-in-new-york/





    ummmm..... giggity?


    a change in the constitution......now!!!!!!!!


  • #6
    christmas2012
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,827 ✭✭✭christmas2012


    they are morally bankrupt - thats sickening to think there are peados getting their kicks (these are not just images you can detach yourself from,these are real children being raped and abused),its disgusting.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    starbelgrade
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,739 ✭✭✭✭starbelgrade


    I'd imagine that you'd have to go out of your way to even stream child pornography, which makes this law a bit dubious... surely your browser history would lay testament to what you are searching for.


  • #8
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 1,656 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    If you read the article it is a good thing, what it is saying is that having child porn in a cache file is not sufficient proof that the person knowingly or willingly went after child porn.

    The law is protecting people who had some CP come up on screen due to malware or malicious redirect. Somebody with a collection of willfully downloaded images will still get done.


  • #9
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Nice misleading title.


  • #10
    IM0
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,390 ✭✭✭IM0


    starbelgrade wrote: »
    I'd imagine that you'd have to go out of your way to even stream child pornography, which makes this law a bit dubious... surely your browser history would lay testament to what you are searching for.

    lmao, if only you knew stablegrade, if only you knew :p


  • #11
    Owen_S
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,211 ✭✭✭Owen_S


    People who are shocked by this probably don't know how common it is for people to be redirected from compromised websites or have malware on their computer.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,779 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    Article linked to in the OP wrote:
    The court’s decision hinged on the fact that the images were not downloaded, only viewed. The court ruled that it cannot prove possession of an image that was automatically stored in the computer’s cache without the owner of the computer’s consent.



    As far as I know, the law is similar here. You have to be KNOWLINGLY in possession of child porn to be convicted. In other words, if it;s in the cahce, you can argue you didn;t know it was there.

    Question then is: should you be legally responsible for everything in your cache?
    Non techie question: can you be completely 100% aware of everything in your cache?

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • #13
    Havermeyer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,041 ✭✭✭Havermeyer


    benwavner wrote: »
    The sex offender locator in NYC will be brighter thatn the Sun soon.

    Would it not be the opposite? Seeing as they won't be prosecuted there will not be an offense and, as a result, no offenders?


  • #14
    Praetorian Saighdiuir
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,968 ✭✭✭✭Praetorian Saighdiuir


    Deleted User wrote: »
    If you read the article it is a good thing, what it is saying is that having child porn in a cache file is not sufficient proof that the person knowingly or willingly went after child porn.

    The law is protecting people who had some CP come up on screen due to malware or malicious redirect. Somebody with a collection of willfully downloaded images will still get done.


    Hmmmm, is it good news for you????????:P


  • #15
    Praetorian Saighdiuir
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,968 ✭✭✭✭Praetorian Saighdiuir


    nummnutts wrote: »
    Would it not be the opposite? Seeing as they won't be prosecuted there will not be an offense and, as a result, no offenders?


    No, it means that every convicted pedo is now going to move to NYC because they have a carte blanche when it comes to pics in their cache.


  • #16
    superluck
    Closed Accounts Posts: 185 ✭✭superluck


    The reason judges are soft on pedophiles is because a lot of them probably look at child porn themselves.


  • #17
    hooradiation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,922 ✭✭✭hooradiation


    superluck wrote: »
    The reason judges are soft on pedophiles is because a lot of them probably look at child porn themselves.

    ITT people fail at understanding anything.


  • #18
    abouttobebanned
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,943 ✭✭✭abouttobebanned


    Those kids were just resting on my account father


  • #19
    downwithpeace
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,259 ✭✭✭downwithpeace


    Just what the world needs, another loop hole for a despicable crime.


  • #20
    eth0
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,632 ✭✭✭eth0


    FoxT wrote: »
    As internet surveillance techniques (& laws) become more comprehensive, this loophole will ultimately be closed off, I expect. (and hope..)

    You are actually wishing for this big brother invasion of privacy that people have been trying to hold off for years?

    A few lads tossing off to some porn doesn't justify the kind of mass surveillance you seem to be supporting. The poor lads in Egypt would never have been able to start their revolution if the internet was locked down to that extent.


  • #21
    superluck
    Closed Accounts Posts: 185 ✭✭superluck


    I didn't fail to understand anything, buddy.

    "Having images in cache is not the same as viewing" -- that's the argument being made and I really don't care about the circumstances.

    There are plenty of cases where judges suppressed information related to pedophiles and handed down lite sentences to serial offenders.

    Remember Brian Curtin?

    Let's talk about how Gary Glitter was able to travel around abusing kids and get away with it...seriously, the law is soft on pedophiles because those who make up the laws are probably at it themselves.


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    IM0
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,390 ✭✭✭IM0


    I blame pete townsend..


  • #23
    Killer Wench
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,386 ✭✭✭Killer Wench


    I understand the intent of this law. Recently, friends and I stumbled across a child porn profile on facebook (the owner usurped a corporate page with images from its profile). It had images of naked little boys in various poses. We all reported the page to facebook and we all submitted the public details to local law enforcement agencies.


    In truth, we all viewed it but our intent wasn't to distribute it or take pleasure in it; we were trying to get it removed. So, this law could help those of us who find ourselves unknowingly or unwillingly exposed to this type of crap.


  • #24
    El Weirdo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,651 ✭✭✭✭El Weirdo


    superluck wrote: »
    ...seriously, the law is soft on pedophiles because those who make up the laws are probably at it themselves.
    So now it's judges and legislators that are all paedophiles?


  • #25
    Spread
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,876 ✭✭✭Spread


    IM0 wrote: »
    I blame pete townsend..

    WHO?


  • #26
    Radharc na Sleibhte
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,538 ✭✭✭Radharc na Sleibhte


    Spread wrote: »
    WHO?

    Your man from that band..... You know.......
    Jaysis I cant think of the name......


  • #27
    Dartz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,458 ✭✭✭Dartz


    These individual clearly need a visit from this fellow


    In all seriousness, it makes perfect sense. It means people won't be criminalised by the actions of a troll.


  • #28
    carbon nanotube
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 994 ✭✭✭carbon nanotube


    Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »
    http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/05/09/viewing-child-porn-on-the-web-now-legal-in-new-york/





    ummmm..... giggity?


    garry glitter is on his way


  • #29
    1ZRed
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,293 ✭✭✭1ZRed


    I can't download movies and games for free anymore but I could watch kiddy porn in NY as compensation?
    Yep that's perfect sense at work, right there:rolleyes:


  • #30
    FlyingIrishMan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,861 ✭✭✭FlyingIrishMan


    Who downloads their porn now anyway...


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,683 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    FlyingIrishMan wrote: »
    Who downloads their porn now anyway...
    for the most part pedophiles who want access to their perversions once these websites have been aggressively pulled down.

    There are some good reasons to let the govt have some control over the web.


Advertisement
Advertisement