Judge rules that viewing child porn on the Web is legal

[Simfan34]

Viewing child pornography online isn't a crime, the New York Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday in the case of a college professor whose work computer was found to have stored more than a hundred illegal images in its Web cache.

The court dismissed one of the two counts of promoting a sexual performance of a child and one of the dozens of counts of possession of child pornography on which James D. Kent was convicted. The court upheld the other counts against Kent, an assistant professor of public administration at Marist College in Poughkeepsie, N.Y.

Kent — who said at his sentencing that he "abhorred" child pornography and argued that someone else at Marist must have placed the images on his computer — was sentenced to one to three years in state prison in August 2009.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/08/11602955-viewing-child-porn-on-the-web-legal-in-new-york-state-appeals-court-finds?lite

[greenforest32]

It's still illegal to host it but I have to say that I don't like the idea of the government being able to fine/incarcerate people for seeing something

[Redalgo]

Though I consider such material disgusting, I think that possessing or viewing it causes no harm.

[True Federalist]

Though I consider such material disgusting, I think that possessing or viewing it causes no harm.

The creation of it, especially the pre-pubescent junk, does cause harm.  Coming down hard on the possession and viewing of it is intended to discourage the demand that leads to it being made.

[© Tweed the Younger]

Though I consider such material disgusting, I think that possessing or viewing it causes no harm.

The creation of it, especially the pre-pubescent junk, does cause harm.  Coming down hard on the possession and viewing of it is intended to discourage the demand that leads to it being made.

a line of logic that has worked out well in the other areas it has been tried.

[True Federalist]

Though I consider such material disgusting, I think that possessing or viewing it causes no harm.

The creation of it, especially the pre-pubescent junk, does cause harm.  Coming down hard on the possession and viewing of it is intended to discourage the demand that leads to it being made.

a line of logic that has worked out well in the other areas it has been tried.

Yes and no.  Unlike those other areas, there is already a fairly small demand for pre-pubescent porn, there is no way to claim its production is at worst self-inflicted harm, and last but not least, the public support for treating all offenders harshly instead of a select subset of offenders is there.

[Beet]

What if you click on a link [or your browser clicks on one for you, as often happens] and it takes you to a child porn site and doesn't let you close the window, and then somebody happens to be walking by at that moment? Or what if you visit a site that secretly downloads material onto your hard drive without your knowledge? Sure, one might be acquitted in the above cases, but you could still be bankrupted by legal fees, lose your job, and be permanently tarred for life.

[ChairmanSanchez]

What if you click on a link [or your browser clicks on one for you, as often happens] and it takes you to a child porn site and doesn't let you close the window, and then somebody happens to be walking by at that moment? Or what if you visit a site that secretly downloads material onto your hard drive without your knowledge? Sure, one might be acquitted in the above cases, but you could still be bankrupted by legal fees, lose your job, and be permanently tarred for life.

Or if your cat steps on your keyboard and downloads 10,000 images!

[For Oklahoma]

[Beet]

What if you click on a link [or your browser clicks on one for you, as often happens] and it takes you to a child porn site and doesn't let you close the window, and then somebody happens to be walking by at that moment? Or what if you visit a site that secretly downloads material onto your hard drive without your knowledge? Sure, one might be acquitted in the above cases, but you could still be bankrupted by legal fees, lose your job, and be permanently tarred for life.

Or if your cat steps on your keyboard and downloads 10,000 images!

An innocent person's life could be ruined by big government. I'm against that.

[Simfan34]

I wonder when we'll all agree something is bad.

[© Tweed the Younger]

how about nationalizing child porn and allowing pedophiles to purchase it from the government at a nominal cost.  perhaps levy a sin tax on it.  harm reduction.

[So the Heroes Fall]

how about nationalizing child porn and allowing pedophiles to purchase it from the government at a nominal cost.  perhaps levy a sin tax on it.  harm reduction.

How is the child porn being sold by the government going to be produced?

[Former Moderate]

This thread is quickly heading into soon-to-be-locked territory.

[© Tweed the Younger]

how about nationalizing child porn and allowing pedophiles to purchase it from the government at a nominal cost.  perhaps levy a sin tax on it.  harm reduction.

How is the child porn being sold by the government going to be produced?

reproduce that which has already been produced.

[Former Moderate]

And congratulations on sealing the deal, Tweed. Locked.