Is VIEWING child porn a crime? While DISGUSTING and DISTURBING, is viewing it a crime in itself?
- 50 Replies
In a controversial decision that is already sparking debate around the country, the New York Court of Appeals ruled on Tuesday thatviewing child pornography online is not a crime.
"The purposeful viewing of child pornography on the internet is now legal in New York," Senior Judge Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick wrote in a majority decision for the court.
The decision came after Marist College professor James D. Kent was sentenced to prison in August 2009 after more than 100 images of child pornography were found on his computer's cache.
Whenever someone views an image online, a copy of the image's data is saved in the computer's memory cache.
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.
As The Atlantic Wire notes, under current New York law, "it is illegal to create, possess, distribute, promote or facilitate child pornography." But that leaves out one critical distinction, as Judge Ciparick stated in the court's decision.
"[S]ome affirmative act is required (printing, saving, downloading, etc.) to show that defendant in fact exercised dominion and control over the images that were on his screen," Ciparick wrote. "To hold otherwise, would extend the reach of (state law) to conduct—viewing—that our Legislature has not deemed criminal."
The case originated when Kent brought his computer in to be checked for viruses, complaining that it was running slowly. He has subsequently denied downloading the images himself.
I don't know if its federal, but here in Delaware it is a crime. I imagine its because by viewing it, you are "harboring" the abuse of children, by financial support (anything you even view online, even if you view it for free, supports a sites financing because you're adding hits to the site, making it more valuable). But anyway, I don't personally know (thank god) anyone who's been charged criminally with viewing child pornography, but I know *OF* people hear in Delaware who have been.
Love what you do and you'll never work a day in your life.
Get to know me better at http://www.wifenmom.com/
Viewing, downloading anything in regards to sexual activity to or on a child should be a crime!
Oh and I speak as an adult survivor of childhood sexual abuse. It is a crime no matter how you look at it. And that's all I have go to say about that.
I think it IS a crime, because it promotes the whole industry to have people watch that stuff. Also people who get off watching pre-pubesant children have sex, or get raped, are, in my opinion are more likely to DO that stuff in real life
Ok, so I hadn't read anything but your question in the title the first time I responded to this. Now I have read it. In essence, they're saying that people who accidentally view child pornography shouldn't be charged. They're kind of stretching what "accidentally" means when it comes to the guy with over 100 images on his computer, but what they're basically saying is that accidents happen. Well that's obvious, if someone really just happened onto a photo of child pornography, totally unintentionally, Of course they shouldn't be charged. But I gotta tell ya, I've been surfing the Internet for years, and I work online for hours a day, and never once have I stumbled upon child pornography, and if I did, I'd call the police. So really this law has got to be the dumbest most pointless thing ever. Like, why would anyone ever think "We need to pave the way for perverts to have the perfect excuse to looking at child pornography by making a point to argue that stumbling upon it is okay." It should all be illegal. If by some crazy chance you actually stumble across child pornography, you should have a moral AND legal obligation to call the police, clearly if you do, you're not going to be charged, if you don't report it to the police, well, you''re an asshole, so you get whatever legal repercussions may come along with your choices.
JMO, I don't even know if it makes any sense, I've had a long day.
Love what you do and you'll never work a day in your life.
Get to know me better at http://www.wifenmom.com/
it should be illegal if there's any unwilling participants.
I don't have a hard and fast opinion on this, but I do think that making a law against it would be very tricky.
Once, I was on cafemom and someone posted a facebook link, asking us to report the page. I don't remember any other details she gave me, I just knew that I was not expecting to see what I saw when I clicked on the link. It was child pornography in someone's FB profile picture. I did report the FB page and forward it to the authorities.
However, in no way, shape or form do I think that I should be held legally responsible for having seen that image. I was trying to HELP.
Also, because of another post on this site earlier, I was googling my children's names and ended up seeing expired links to a website my step-father used to run. It was supposed to be a family site, but he did not have permission from anyone to post these pictures, and the site was completely open to the public, with our full names and everything on there. Well, the links were expired so I googled the name of the link and the picture. I didn't even think about it, I was not thinking clearly because I was upset that these pictures were, at one time, all over the web. I did not end up finding the actual pictures but if you look at my internet browser, it would raise red flags if you didn't know what I was actually doing.
I just think that this is a really tricky law to make. When you're surfing the web, you follow one link after another, with no certainty of what's on the next click.
At what age should I tell my son dh is not his bio dad?