-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Simply viewing Child Porn online is not a crime: New York Court ruling
- Thread starter planar1280
- Start date
- Status
cyberheater
PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 Xbone PS4 PS4
You Americans are just fucking crazy. SMH.
Salvor.Hardin
Banned
That's fair enough. I imagine there's a bunch of child porn on most porn websites that we come across every day but don't know. Only so much difference between a 16 year old and an 18 year old. It would suck to get charged for any child porn that happens to come across your screen while you're browsing and I'm guessing that's why the judge decided what he did.
Yeah, this makes sense to me. Otherwise, someone could easily be screwed over accidentally.
D
Deleted member 1235
Unconfirmed Member
I........ dunno about that.
It's conceivable that someone who has NO interest in seeing pictures of child porn may get one or two in their cache from inadvertent viewing via virus/bad link/4chan or some shit, but I dunno about this law.
what's to stop a sicko from storing all his child porn in cache folders now?
It's conceivable that someone who has NO interest in seeing pictures of child porn may get one or two in their cache from inadvertent viewing via virus/bad link/4chan or some shit, but I dunno about this law.
what's to stop a sicko from storing all his child porn in cache folders now?
My first reaction to this was along the same WTF lines as a lot of people in here, but I think I see the court's point. It's perfectly possible to view child porn completely unintentionally online. Whether you're browsing a site like 4chan or even a normal forum that's been raided and spammed with porn pics, you don't have complete control over what images you see online. I think it's good that the court is able to distinguish between seeing something and downloading it. On the other hand, I can see this opening a loophole for pedos, so I'm not exactly celebrating this ruling.
HomerSimpson-Man
Member
WTH?
Fair enough?? You VIEW CP and that's okay but you download CP and it's not??
So someone could do an hours viewing and that's fine??
C'mon Son??
samus i am
Member
If you actually read the article it isn't that unreasonable.
Marty Chinn
Member
Misleading topic.
It doesn't state that viewing online child porn is not a crime. It says having cached files on your drive isn't proof enough that you intended to view child porn. There needs to be proof you had intent to view those files in order to be accused of looking at child porn.
We all should be happy about this ruling.
It doesn't state that viewing online child porn is not a crime. It says having cached files on your drive isn't proof enough that you intended to view child porn. There needs to be proof you had intent to view those files in order to be accused of looking at child porn.
We all should be happy about this ruling.
I guess they would have to prove that the person actively sought out those images.
Hot Coldman
Banned
In other news, Senior Judge Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick just bought a year's subscription to Tera
These seem to contradict each other. The law seems to say "If you accidentally clicked on a link and child porn appeared on your screen. You shouldn't be guilty of child porn charges and be forced to register as a sex offender for the rest of your life" not "As long as you don't download anything it's nice and legal"
Backfoggen
Banned
Making it legal is not the way to go imo.
Making it legal to view helps to create a demand for it, surely?
jediyoshi
Member
So there shouldn't be any differentiation between someone who stockpiles it and everyone who views this thread after someone doing an account suicide posts cp here?
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
I don't think very many people are reading the article.
The ruling is basically that the existence of a cached image is not sufficient proof to prove possession of child pornography. It's not saying "it's not illegal to view child pornography" or "it's not illegal to view child pornography unless you download it", it's saying "if you accidentally stumble onto an image or are linked to one, you are not in violation of the law and you don't need to light your hard drive on fire."
The ruling is basically that the existence of a cached image is not sufficient proof to prove possession of child pornography. It's not saying "it's not illegal to view child pornography" or "it's not illegal to view child pornography unless you download it", it's saying "if you accidentally stumble onto an image or are linked to one, you are not in violation of the law and you don't need to light your hard drive on fire."
Presumably any case against an individual worth prosecuting would have proof of intent to download as well. Navigating to and actively searching for child porn.
I'd also imagine that gigabytes of the stuff in your cache folder would still get you arrested.
metadata
planar1280
Banned
Still a slippery slope,anyone can just view and close and go back and view again online
Salvor.Hardin
Banned
The bolded is important:
If there is suspicion of your activity, then it wouldn't be difficult at all to find the proof of your intent simply by perusing your internet records. If the proof does not exist, then it only makes sense that the act was unintentional.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Good thing, its such a slippery slope letting the government decide what we view online
EDIT: Reading further this does make fair amounts of sense.
/sarcasm
EDIT: Reading further this does make fair amounts of sense.
AlimNassor
Banned
I can finally go back to browsing /s/ without worry of some pervert spamming CP.
samus i am
Member
It is about if you accidentally stumble upon the images. Which I will confess, has happened to me before.
nVidiot_Whore
Banned
The judge outright states "The purposeful viewing of child pornography on the internet is now legal in New York."
As long as you don't save the file elsewhere I guess.
Seems pretty damn silly. I get why though. It is pretty messed up that clicking a link can get you VANNED.
Salvador said:
The judge outright states even purposeful viewing is legal.
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
From what I understand, this is fair. If someone were to send you a link that happens to be child porn and you clicked on it, this ruling would make it impossible for you to be found guilty. If someone were to actually download child pornography this ruling wouldn't protect them.
If you've been on the internet for as long as many of us have, it's happened to us.
If you've been on the internet for as long as many of us have, it's happened to us.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
Again, I don't think the ruling is saying "You get to view an unlimited amount of child pornography online!!!! Not illegal!!!!", I think it's saying "Absent other proof, the existence of (an) image(s) will not convict someone".
Other proof could include stuff like a pattern of accessing sites, having a username registered on a site, images being saved, uploading images. I suspect it could also include the contents of the cache, provided that they are properly and provably contextualized.
Marty Chinn
Member
That's why further established proof of intent needs to take place.
Maybe this is easier for GAF to understand. Let's say someone on GAF had in part of their avatar that would qualify for child porn but it had not been noticed yet. Everyone who read a thread where that person posted would have been charged for viewing child porn because that avatar image was now in their cache.
Is that something we want? Or would you rather have further evidence that you had intent to view it?
Barbacoatl
Banned
Sound logic, if polemic.
TheContact
Member
So still images of naked kids is okay but videos are not. Got it, NY.
...wtf
...wtf
Interesting how child porn gets people to think "lock them all up regardless of the collateral damage. I'd rather 1/2 the people's lives we ruin be innocent then have a single guilty person walk free"
Not saying that's what you think specifically but yeah.
It says it's legal if you don't save the files. So browsing a website for it or streaming a video would be fine. I admit, it would be difficult to prove that the images were viewed purposefully or not if they were just sitting in the temp cache (unless there were hundreds from multiple IP's), but it does still seem like an invite to me.
How bad was it? You must have been worried.
"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.
Covers videos too I'd think.
You're one of the only ones it seems.
nVidiot_Whore
Banned
Pretty sure you guys are just outright wrong.
The judge that made the ruling seems to think so at least.
They aren't claiming they'd have to prove intent.. they are essentially ruling that browser caches don't represent "procurement."
That's the ruling.. the "other evidence" clause means they'd have to have other evidence of procurement other than a browser cache.. not have to prove "intent."
Again, important statement, from the judge himself:
Judge who made the ruling said:
Beyond that:
So the expectation is that new laws need to be passed.
- Status