Viewing Child Porn now Legal in New York

[ElPatron]

1. Deliberately finding videos or pictures of people who are dead or dying is both illegal in many countries and utterly morally reprehensible.

How is it morally reprehensible? Not searching for the video does not bring people back.

If a human dying is reprehensible then how come hunting videos are common place? Are you suggesting for some irrational reason humans can't be seen dying?

If owning firearms in a country is illegal, does it make it reprehensible to watch FPS Russia or play CoD?

Finally, are you implying that video evidence of certain things happening shouldn't be available to the public? Heck, why can't I know what it looks like to be hit by a .50BMG?

I understand that proxy servers etc make it difficult if not impossible to really track people in this way, and that is one of the things that really worries me about proxy servers, but there must be ways to determine whether someone has actually gone searching for child porn or not.

The problem is that if "those ways" become common:

- They would be VERY unconstitutional, since you'd have to break into a person's privacy to find what that person is doing with the proxy.
- A lot of countries/powerful companies would use it to arrest/threaten "whistle-blowers" trying to send evidence to outsiders.

 

[DeepComet5581]

Although I don't think this is quite correct yet, I do think this ruling could be useful.

What is needed is a way to determine if the person went looking for it or whether it happened without their knowledge. Your DNS being hacked and sending you to a child porn site is very different to going on to Google and typing 'Child Pornography.' (I know this isn't quite a perfect analogy but you know what I mean)

I understand that proxy servers etc make it difficult if not impossible to really track people in this way, and that is one of the things that really worries me about proxy servers, but there must be ways to determine whether someone has actually gone searching for child porn or not.

A good example would be going on to this very forum and clicking on a topic under an innocent guise (Talking about... Max Payne 3) and finding the topic full of child porn. THAT is accidental content viewing and one can get arrested for it (Here in the UK) if it's reported. This law hopes to prevent that.

Why should somone else being a sick c**t mean your life has to be ruined?

 

[evilneko]

So! In answer to your first question, yes. watching a crime and not reporting it is being complicit to the committing of said crime.

You really have no idea how utterly ridiculous that is, do you? Seriously, think about that statement for a few minutes. "watching a crime and not reporting it is being complicit." Just think on it for a few minutes, see if you can figure out why it's so absurd.

 

[ElPatron]

They are common and widely used.

Just spend some time on 4chan and before long a thread about Tor and the "deep web" will show up.

With Tor and VPNs it means that most of these people will not be caught easily or at all.

That's the main problem with catching these people, anonymity software is almost too good at this point.

I know what TOR is, and I regularly visit /k/ to obtain PDFs.

What I meant was using means to monitor proxy servers. They are unconstitutional.

 

[Agayek]

I like this ruling for one reason and one reason only: It doesn't set a precedent that allows you to be prosecuted for looking at something the courts have deemed over the line.

That kind of shit shouldn't fly, ever.

 

[lacktheknack]

In my one visit to /b/, I encountered three things that cemented my desire to never, EVER go back:

1. The OP and last five posts of a gore thread
2. The OP and last five posts of a jailbait thread
3. The OP and last five posts of a "masturbation roll" game

Now, am I a criminal for scrolling down the /b/ page and accidentally seeing CP (that was hopefully immediately erased) on the jailbait preview? I hope not. However, had someone accessed my cache in the few seconds it took before the thread was wiped off the page (assuming it wasn't bumped again), that would be "evidence" that I view CP - even though I don't. Isn't that the idea behind the "Viewing Is Not Illegal" ruling?

 

[viranimus]

Like it or not, technically it is the right call to make. If there is no proactive attempt at storing or possessing this content, then you cannot claim it is possessing the content. Doesnt make kiddie porns existence ok, it is just explaining that there is no proactive and affirmative attempt to store that porn for future use.

Ill give you an example of how the "cache" argument does not work.

If you go looking for porn, you find that many times when you click on one porn site, that suggests that if you click this it will take you to whatever the thumbnail describes. The deeper you go looking for porn the more you see that thumbnails do not always link to what they suggest. Thus many times you can click on a thumbnail based on searching for a innocuous term such as "petite" and get thrown to a mass redirection page with hundreds of thumbnails some of which you had absolutely no intention of clicking, but there they are stored in your cache regardless. You have inadvertently stored literally hundreds of non requested images simply by clicking one link. You as a user can never completely predict what content will be on the other side of a link, so you cannot hold someone liable for a webpage displaying content the user did not intentionally try to access.

EDIT: Example clarification

http://www.dogpile.com/search/images?fcoid=417&fcop=topnav&fpid=27&q=cars&ql=

With this link you see roughly 12 images. Those images are redirected downloads of content from their source pages. Meaning when you looked at images of "cars" you downloaded into your cache content from 15 different webpages with one link, not just one specified webpage. It also clarifies where the source thumbnail originates from. Porn sites typically work in the same manner. So for the purposes of the example, say you only wanted to look up actual cars, and references to Disneys film "Cars" were something prohibited. You simply had no way of controlling based on your search criteria what results would come back, and as you see you get an abundance of "Disneys Cars" results stored in your cache because of the search.

Then there is the deep level of porn where you simply have no way of telling any more. Very few porn links actually affirm the actresses age info or attest to her being over age. There are also fetishes that hover around the area, but are so indistinct that its hard to separate them. School girls, Baby sitters, young, ect. All focused around the same fetish type that portray youth, but are just indistinct enough that you cannot 100% tell as a consumer if the actress is under/over the age of 18 or not. So in many of these cases where you can have someone searching for completely legal but borderline tastes, get exposed to unintended underage content without being able to verify or validate if it is underage or not.

So yes, again, regrettable, but a logical stance given the exact circumstances involved.

 

[6037084]

Well looks like the pedophiles who don't actually harm children are going to have a better life in NY. I'm only glad for them since it's not like they chose to be pedos.

 

[CarlMin]

Interesting thing to note: It's not illegal to view child porn, but it IS illegal to possess it. Know what counts as possessing it? Posting it online for other people to view.

So 75 percent of all comments on this article are debating points based on a misunderstanding?

 

[theultimateend]

When I think of child pornography, I think of films/pictures where a child was actually abused to create them, not hand-drawn art or stories or adult actors playing a role. Yes, you've seen people fake being murdered in action films, but it's unlikely you've watched actual snuff films.

There are websites for such things, and they are legal. I have seen an actual living person have his head cut off with a chainsaw for real.

Which I don't suggest, it turns out your head is like...SUPER important.

Omg that made me lol something fierce. I'm sick, I'm in a shit mood and my boyfriend dumped me two days ago, so you can imagine how difficult that is to do.

Well done!

+100

Happy to have been of service . Normally I just annoy folks .

 

[evilneko]

-snip-

You got a warning and then you go and do the same thing again. It wasn't me that reported you, btw, despite your personal attack on practically everyone in the world.

I've no desire to continue this "discussion" in PM. I'll leave it to you to figure out why, though I have a hunch you'll come to the wrong conclusion.

 

[Forgetitnow344]

Oh yeah that feeling when you can go to prison for watching/reading strike witches, dance in the vampire bund or knj because others find it offensive.

To be fair about Strike Witches... You know that feeling when you're browsing porn and you go from finding girls who are young and perky and maybe, just might be under 18 to finding a girl who probably hasn't even had her period yet and suddenly your boner just dies and you want to call your mom to tell her you're sorry for everything you've ever done wrong?

That's the feeling I get when I see Strike Witches. Maybe that's just me though.