New York lawmakers seek to criminalize viewing of child p*rn
By M. Alex Johnson, msnbc.com
A day after the state's top court found that simply viewing child p*rnography wasn't a crime in New York, two legislators said Wednesday that they would soon introduce a measure to make it one.
Reuters contributed to this report by M. Alex Johnson of msnbc.com. Follow M. Alex Johnson on Twitter and Facebook.
The state Court of Appeals the equivalent of the Supreme Court in most other states ruled Tuesday in the case of a college professor whose work computer was found to contain illegal images that "merely viewing Web images of child pornography does not, absent other proof, constitute either possession or procurement," which are illegal under state law.
read the rest
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/ … -porn?lite
really? viewing child porn isn't a crime/ I'm sure the children didn't volunteer to be in those smut movies...
I wonder why no one chimed in...
child porn in itself is a crime against children..I am very surprised that NY allows the viewing of it
Well this is a tough one for me... I don't think it's right to make it a crime to view something and the law is going very overboard on this issue just a few months a go a fourteen year old was arrested for making child p*rn because she took semi nude photos of herself and put them on the internet. Also I know it can be very easy to stumble on something you weren't looking for on the internet. Obviously people who make child p*orn should be imprisoned and the key thrown away but I question who is being hurt by someone looking at an image on the internet? If they are paying for it that is one thing because it means they are funding the crime but otherwise there is no one being harmed.
So it is a crime that is not harming anyone, that can easily lead to false conviction or conviction on something done by accident and that will cost the taxpayer a lot of money to convict? Seems to me we would be better off finding counseling for people to address why they are looking at that stuff rather than convicting them of the crime of seeing the film of a crime. As the above poster said we don't convict people for seeing a photo of murder.
How can you say it is a crime that is not harming anyone? If there was no market for the product, it would no longer be produced. The whole industry which exists to profit from exploited children exists for only one reason, to satisfy the desires of the viewer. Those who view this trash are directly supporting the production of it.
As it states very clearly in my post if they are paying for it that is different because it supports the crime but there are any number of free forums where this stuff gets posted as well as the dark web and in no way profit the producers. The crime should be providing material aid or benefit to the makers not the thought crime of seeing it.
Pay or not, if a stupid little girl posts her own pictures on the Internet, and creeps view them they're essentially exploiting the stupidity (or at least foolishness) of a fourteen-year-old kid. I'm all for "freedom of the Internet" (which isn't actually adequately outline in The Constitution, in view of the fact that there was no Internet back then), but when it comes minor children I think anyone who finds such pictures should report the site where they find them, and anyone who intentionally keeps "finding" those sites ought to be charged with a crime. People who run the sites should be arrested, and the sites should be closed down. I don't go for the "they do it anyway" school of law-making. Besides, a lot of those kids aren't kids who choose to put their own photos online for creeps to view.
Well thee is a few problems with that #1 It means we are deciding what people can and cannot look at, dangerous precedent if you ask me. #2 Any site that exclusively carries child p*rn is shut down very quickly (as they should be) but most are either on the dark web which can't really be touched or they are just forums where people are free to post whatever they want and which are too large to be controlled. #3 As mentioned earlier by another poster we don't convict people for looking at other crimes nor should we, the role of the law is to protect society, we should not punish people for being creeps. My take on it is punish people for aiding the crime (i.e giving money to the producers) and definitely punish the makers as hard as possible but what people choose to look at in their own home is none of my business regardless of how society views it. Do whatever you want as long as you aren't hurting anyone.
We are talking about child porn images here, aren't we?
The worst of which shows adult men physically penetrating 2 year old babies and worse.
Anyone caught even looking at those photographs should be jailed for a long time.
This is NOT a victimless crime.
There are many many adults (women too) who attack babies and toddlers, as well as older children, with bottles, candles, use your imagination, and PHOTOGRAPH themselves doing it.This is NOT for money, it's how they get their kicks, and those caught with such vile images on their computers usually have 1000s of them.
Every single one of those tots are VICTIMS.
Every photograph made of them getting attacked is real.
Snuff movies aren't legal are they? What's the difference?
There is nothing innocent in anyone wanting to look at such vile images.
I cannot believe you are treating it so lightly in your replies.
Snuff films are perfectly legal to watch, just not to make. Take the JFK assassination film for example which most people have seen that was film of a murder and yet it's legal to see it's been on national television countless times.
Then there is this: There are many many adults (women too) who attack babies and toddlers, as well as older children, with bottles, candles, use your imagination, and PHOTOGRAPH themselves doing it.This is NOT for money, it's how they get their kicks, and those caught with such vile images on their computers usually have 1000s of them.
So? Those people are abusing children, lock them up throw away the key, what has that got to do with convicting someone of looking at it?
If someone finds these images online and starts looking at them they need therapy to solve their problem but they are not hurting anyone.
If you cannot see how looking at those photos 'is not hurting anyone' then sadly there is nothing more I wish to say to you.
Your own replies have given so much more away about yourself than you'd ever know.
People are to be convicted of what they think now?
I don't believe it was meant what they think -in regards to content.
But agreeably, a person who views such content for anymore than a UNIX timestamp moment, is no longer just thinking about such content, they are participating in content activity.
Well I am sorry you are incapable of using logic in emotional issues but as long as no money is involved, looking at something never hurts children.
The second sentence is just a sad reflection on your ability to discuss something rationally.
The reason it is legal to watch a murder but not child p*rn is that people when dealing with child p*rn run around doing everything they can to make it look like they are good people and to prove to everyone they are not pedophiles so no one will accuse them of it, it's cowardice that's all.
Gee, I wonder what side the ACLU will be on.
Probably too surprised. Pretty sure that accessing any images like that in the UK is totally illegal
The difference lies in the intention behind the images and how they are used. Some people may derive satisfaction from viewing crime scene photos, but the images weren't created for that purpose. That isn't why the person died (generally). By contrast, child pornography is created specifically to be viewed. The crime was committed, in this case, at least in part, to create these images. Also, there may be financial incentive behind sharing these images if, for example, someone collects ad revenue from a site hosting the images or a forum where these images are shared.
The problem I see with criminalizing viewing these images is how to draw the line between unintentional and intentional viewing. Can a person be charged if they are the victim of a redirect, a hacked site, or harassment from somebody else trying to defame them by emailing them images? What about cases where the age of the model is misrepresented or even just ambiguous and the person viewing the images isn't aware they're committing a crime? If they can find a good way to avoid these kinds of scenarios and err on the side of caution by being forced to establish that the person viewing them is aware of what they're doing and has a habit of doing it, I don't think making it illegal is a bad thing.
Freedom is a wonderful thing, but it doesn't excuse us from protecting the innocent and defenseless.
The equivalent would be buying a snuff film.
Unfortunately, making it a crime is not going to stop it. It won't stop the perverts from viewing it and it won't stop the vultures who prey on helpless children from producing it. But at least it's a step in the right direction.
Snuff movies are legal if only faked, and the entertainment industry would go broke without them,
'cause they don't know how to do anything else.
It is thought crime pure and simple; and my life shall become a lot more simple if boring, when thought becomes illegal, which if certain tendencies
contnue it will become, or at least the expression
The Constitution protects our legal rights. The word here is "legal". Child porn is not only despicable and about as low down as it gets, it is also illegal, therefore, no protections need be afforded.
This is not really a constitutional issue but the point here is whether it should be a crime or not to watch the film or look at a photograph of a crime.
You are right that it was not a constitutional issue but somehow that usually is argued. That said; If I knowingly purchase stolen goods and get caught with them, I am also considered guilty even though I didn't actually do the stealing. Child porn is illegal and if I (knowingly) download it to view, then legally, I am guilty. The dilema as I see it is (knowingly). How would knowingly be proven? But, if, after accidently running across it...which I don't think happens much because it is a very clandestine operation, I store or save the images...the "I just ran across them", excuse should go by the wayside. Just saying...
Well the thing is if you *knowingly* take/buy or sell stolen goods you are committing a crime because you are funding the crime and because you are denying the rightful owner of the possession his property so it makes sense that it should be a crime. On the other hand by just looking at an image you are neither paying the person who made it (unless the site is run by them and they have advertising but that is not generally how it works and in that instance should be a crime) or denying anyone their property so it makes no sense for it to be a crime.
True. But you know that the posting of the pictures is a crime, so if you are looking at them or storing them; aren't you aiding and abetting because you are witnessing a crime be in real or on the internet? Would it not be a crime to know that it is illegal and you don't report it? Just saying....
Not reporting a crime is not a crime, you are not an accessory after the fact unless you: A person may be convicted of aiding and abetting any act made criminal under the code. The elements of aiding and abetting are, generally:
(1) guilty knowledge on the part of the accused ( the mens rea);
(2) the commission of an offense by someone; and
(3) the defendant assisted or participated in the commission of the offense (the actus reus).
Since merely observing the product of a crime is not participating or aiding the crime not reporting it is also not a crime. Also you did not witness the crime.
More basically even if it were a crime you should be charged with failing to report it not with merely seeing it.
I just read the entire opinion quickly so I think I'm stating this right but they only overturned 2 of the counts. The key is "control and possession". Here is a snippet:
and his messages to "P.B." acknowledging his possession
of child pornography (id. at 67-68). The court further held that
the evidence was legally sufficient to prove defendant's knowing
possession of the images on the "School Backyard" page, finding
that defendant "knowingly accessed the Web page and displayed it
on his computer screen . . . establishing his dominion and
control over the images" (id. at 68).
The court also found that the evidence was legally
sufficient to support defendant's 134 other convictions, because
those counts were based on "images which, at one time, had been
downloaded and saved in the allocated space of the hard drive and
subsequently deleted" (id. at 69). With respect to count two,
for promotion of the "Arina" video, the court found that "the
Interesting but I am not sure how it pertains to the issue we were discussing as far as whether it should be legal or not to view the images.
Yes, that was the issue; just viewing and that was exactly the argument that was put before the court. I think that the court got it right. If the viewing was inadvertent, then there was no law broken and there should be no conviction. In that he downloaded, saved on the hard drive and reviewed repeatedly the photos; the court found this clearly met the "control and possession" needed by the statute already in place in New York. Don't you think that is the discussion or did I miss something? Wasn't the discussion based on this case? Just saying...
Well the discussion has been more about whether it should be legal to view child porn in the simple sense how the court defines possession is different, the definition of view I have been discussing is not accidentally stumbling on the content but also not saving it, simply viewing it intentionally.
Purchasing access should certainly be criminalized as it creates demand for the product. Deliberate viewing can also create a climate that encourages making the product but it would vary. I can see how people might come across the material without really intending to--so just the act of looking at it would not qualify as there is no mens rea. Likewise prose or simulated material with no actual minors would not seem to qualify unless you are prosecuted under the obscenity laws.
Who would view child pornography but pedophiles! Enough of justifying child pornography! Viewing it or possessing it in your hard drive is the same! I can't believe that such a hypocrisy can exist! When it is a college professor involved it is called "viewing" when it is a regular teacher he will be a criminal!
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY SHOULDN'T EXIST AND THEREFORE BE PUNISHABLE!
It's not about justifying child porn (which is disgusting) it's about limiting what people can be convicted of, looking at something should not be a crime and looking at a criminal activity is not a crime. As for professors and teachers looking at such material intentionally seems like ample grounds to me to fire someone but not to convict them of a crime, for something to be a crime it should have a victim so lets look at this crime and identify the victim.
A person right now goes on 4chan or another free to use site where Child p*orn is banned but appears sometimes anyway, they decide to look at it, after doing so they close it no money is exchanged and no advertising money is produced.
Tell me who that person harmed, if he harmed someone by all means lets convict him.
by Eugene Hardy5 years ago
Specifically, you have run out of benefits and you still can not find a job?
by AnnCee7 years ago
. . . .the lawmakers say they,re merely following through on a pledge they made when the health care overhaul passed in March, and they expect the White House and Democratic leadership to do the same.Some members of the...
by Josak5 years ago
A few years back I met a man who had been a child soldier in the Sierra Leone conflict, in one of the most harrowing conversations I have ever had over a whole evening he told me about the things he had seen and done,...
by Jeff Berndt6 years ago
So we punish premeditated murder, or first degree murder) more harshly than we do unpremeditated murder (or second degree murder). The idea, I guess, is that someone who would deliberately kill another person, make a...
by Wesman Todd Shaw4 years ago
Al Sharpton didn't ever mention it, Jesse Jackson never brought it up, and you didn't look like one of Obama's daughters.The mass media couldn't sell your murder towards a globalist agenda, and Democrats didn't care...
by thaivalentine6 years ago
So many of us are busy everyday at the office that we literally do not have much time to pursue relationships. Years ago people married the people they "ran into" in their neighborhood, office, etc.,...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.