lance.dunlop Posted October 3, 2012 Group: Junior Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 16 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 106 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 67 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/29/2011 Status: Offline Birthday: 05/20/1988 Share Posted October 3, 2012 You can find the article here http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/10/child-pornography-legal-new-york-porn-possession-james-kent_n_1505916.html?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false "It is now not illegal to view child pornography on the internet in New York. The state's Court Of Appeals ruled Tuesday that simply looking at child pornography online does not constitute criminal possession or procurement of the images. "Rather, some 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," wrote Senior Judge Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick in a majority opinion of the six-judge ruling, according to MSNBC. "To hold otherwise, would extend the reach of (state law) to conduct — viewing — that our Legislature has not deemed criminal." Judge Victoria A. Graffeo simplified things, writing, "The purposeful viewing of child pornography on the internet is now legal in New York." [View the complete ruling here.] And how did this all come about? Meet 65-year-old James Kent, a former professor at Marist College whose computer was found to contain pornographic images in 2007. From The New York Daily News: [Kent] was convicted of two counts of procuring and 134 counts of possessing a sexual performance by a child. He began his one- to three-year sentence in 2009. The Court of Appeals agreed that Kent was properly convicted because he had downloaded, saved and deleted 132 images. But the majority said some images in his computer cache, temporary files automatically stored from sites he viewed, cannot be held against him under state law. The ruling absolved the professor of two of the counts against him, Reuters reports. As for the rest of the counts, Kent is still guilty. According to emails documented in the ruling, Kent may have been collecting the images for a potential research project into child pornography regulation. Kent claimed, according to MSNBC, that he "abhorred" child pornography, and that someone else must have put the images on his computer. According to the ruling, one subfolder found on Kent's computer, "contained approximately 13,000 saved images of female children, whom Investigator Friedman estimated to be 8 or 9 years old, dressed in lingerie or bathing suits and many with their legs spread open." On Wednesday, Republican State Senator Martin Golden and Democrat Assemblyman Joseph Lentol said they will introduce legislation that will make illegal "knowingly accessing" child pornography." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted October 3, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.76 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.97 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted October 3, 2012 And so it begins. . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LadyC Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 yes it does.... this is heartbreaking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeannieC Posted October 3, 2012 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 9 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 96 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 27 Days Won: 1 Joined: 08/04/2012 Status: Offline Birthday: 05/21/1970 Share Posted October 3, 2012 Unbelievable. I don't even know what to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
other one Posted October 3, 2012 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 29 Topic Count: 593 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 55,875 Content Per Day: 7.55 Reputation: 27,626 Days Won: 271 Joined: 12/29/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted October 3, 2012 Unbelievable. I don't even know what to say. Agreed, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angels4u Posted October 3, 2012 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 56 Topic Count: 1,664 Topics Per Day: 0.20 Content Count: 19,763 Content Per Day: 2.39 Reputation: 12,160 Days Won: 28 Joined: 08/22/2001 Status: Offline Share Posted October 3, 2012 This can't be true I am shocked!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
refugepsa91 Posted October 3, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 331 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 5,961 Content Per Day: 0.76 Reputation: 61 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/25/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted October 3, 2012 I can't even form a coherent thought about this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneLight Posted October 4, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 22 Topic Count: 1,294 Topics Per Day: 0.21 Content Count: 31,762 Content Per Day: 5.26 Reputation: 9,760 Days Won: 115 Joined: 09/14/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted October 4, 2012 This is what happens when you kick God out ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldShep Posted October 4, 2012 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 20 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 934 Content Per Day: 0.20 Reputation: 137 Days Won: 6 Joined: 07/20/2011 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/12/1950 Share Posted October 4, 2012 (edited) Relax folks, the sky is not falling" YET Computer geeks out there should be able to back this statement up. { this is not a link} FYI: Most of everything your computer comes across is stored on your computer in a temporary Internet file, if a website, redirected your computer to a known bad site, all those pictures they had on their front page are now on your computer. By the letter of the law, if you deleted those pictures you were destroying evidence, yet, many programs run by spammers can connect your computer to these site without "you" the person really wanting to go there. But by law, they can convict you of have those pictures on your computer and then deleting them. Also, you know those pictures of the kids we have in the tub, and running around the house with no cloths on, in some states will get you 10 to 20 years. That family album from the 50's that had "YOU" as a kid running around the lake shore nude, even though it was you as a child, today you the adult, could be by law charged. But the majority said some images in his computer cache, temporary files automatically stored from sites he viewed, cannot be held against him under state law. Check your own state laws covering this issue, you may find it very eyeopening. ~~~Dennis Edited October 4, 2012 by OldShep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneLight Posted October 4, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 22 Topic Count: 1,294 Topics Per Day: 0.21 Content Count: 31,762 Content Per Day: 5.26 Reputation: 9,760 Days Won: 115 Joined: 09/14/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted October 4, 2012 Relax folks, the sky is not falling" YET Computer geeks out there should be able to back this statement up. { this is not a link} FYI: Most of everything your computer comes across is stored on your computer in a temporary Internet file, if a website, redirected your computer to a known bad site, all those pictures they had on their front page are now on your computer. By the letter of the law, if you deleted those pictures you were destroying evidence, yet, many programs run by spammers can connect your computer to these site without "you" the person really wanting to go there. But by law, they can convict you of have those pictures on your computer and then deleting them. Also, you know those pictures of the kids we have in the tub, and running around the house with no cloths on, in some states will get you 10 to 20 years. That family album from the 50's that had "YOU" as a kid running around the lake shore nude, even though it was you as a child, today you the adult, could be by law charged. But the majority said some images in his computer cache, temporary files automatically stored from sites he viewed, cannot be held against him under state law. Check your own state laws covering this issue, you may find it very eyeopening. ~~~Dennis Yes, Dennis, a site does download images in your temp file and install cookies on your system, which is different than the temp files. As a network administrator, I also know there there are programs you can purchase that will not allow you to be redirected to a site you don't want to go to. plus stop you from going to bad sites. The owner sets the controls themselves. If a person has a lot of cookies or images on their system from child porn, there is an overwhelming chance they went there on purpose. Those who are redirected to a site will very quickly leave once they know where they ended up. I have had people quickly shut their computer off and call me, worried they will be in trouble or they have a virus. I am not in favor of what this court said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts