Viewing Child Porn now Legal in New York

Jan 22, 2011
450
0
0
ilovemyLunchbox said:
Cecilthedarkknight_234 said:
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.
well i am more an ass man and the camera is focused on that, also i prefer the oldest witch who was 21 "sakamoto mio so meh" but to each his/her own. Still I liked the series and going to prison over it waste of money lawl but I do know that feeling.
 

funcooker11811

New member
Apr 27, 2012
37
0
0
Matthew94 said:
funcooker11811 said:
Matthew94 said:
They can take it as encouragement but it's not direct encouragement.
Seriously? "They can take it as encouragement"? How the hell else are they supposed to take it? Again, please explain that one to me, because i'm sure whatever justification you can use for it must be something incredible.
They can take it whatever way they want but I feel if the person doesn't sirectly say "I want more of this to be made" they shouldn't be charged with the crime of "encouragement" especially if no money is made off of it.
If you watch a video of someone molesting a child to completion, then yes, you are guilty of encouragement. I'm not talking about getting a troll link, I mean seriously watching CP. By watching those videos, you validate the people that make them, and you're saying that you're okay with child molestation. How the hell is that not encouraging them, and why shouldn't that be criminalized?
 

shintakie10

New member
Sep 3, 2008
1,342
0
0
SaneAmongInsane said:
shintakie10 said:
SaneAmongInsane said:
BloatedGuppy said:
Esotera said:
This ruling is relatively sensible, as otherwise people who accidentally click http://website-hosting-cp.com could be prosecuted for their actions, despite not actively wanting to download it.

There needs to be legislation about viewing CP hundreds of times with relative frequency, but I think this is the right decision as it doesn't create bad legal precedents.
Yeah it's the "accidentally viewing it for several hours every day" element of this ruling that seems a little questionable. Obviously there needs to be protection for dullards who blithely click into mysterious links, but I kind of assumed something like that was already in place. This seems...more encompassing.

Not that I'm a lawyer, or fully understand the legal implications involved.
Seems like an easy way someone could set another person up. All you need is access to their computer with out them knowing.

I think the law is best left as is. Theres to many ways that could be abused if it's changed.
It already is abused horribly. The only reason no one seems to give a damn is because its bein abused by police and prosecutors to put people away when their only crime was lookin at somethin on the internet. Hell, its abused to put sex offender tags on 17 year olds who text naked pictures of themselves to their partners.

Child pornography laws are so horribly fucked that any progress like this is good progress. Hopefully one day people will get their heads out of their collective asses and realize viewin CP is a victimless crime. If a person rapes a child, go after that person with the full extent of the law. If a person molests a child, same thing. The people who give money to people who molest and rape children? Throw the fuckin book at em. However if a person simply views an image file on the internet and doesn't give a dime to anyone for it, leave them the fuck alone.
Dude, I would not go as far as to say it's victimless. Theres still the child being exploited.

I agree theres a lot of gray area with this shit though where the wrong people being prosecuted. But this is what happens when you have overzelious D.A.s that care more about their conviction rate then true justice.
Its victimless for the person watchin. They can do absolutely nothin to stop what for all they know happened 5 years ago by watchin somethin on the internet. The actual act of exploitin the child is the crime with a victim. If they watch some sort of livestream and don't report it, yeah there is a problem there because you absolutely know that someone, at this very moment, is bein hurt and you do nothin about it.

If you (and that you isn't specifically you, but a general you) can separate someone watchin someone else be killed in a video from the person who is actually killin someone. Why is it that you can't separate the person watchin CP from the person who is actively creatin CP?
 

Hipster Chick

New member
Sep 3, 2011
41
0
0
Yeah, because I'd like to live in a country where the police can arrest me on the suspicion that I looked at an image they don't want me to...
 

team star pug

Senior Member
Sep 29, 2009
684
0
21
It only illegal if consciously download, save or print the child pornography, and they've made it legal so that people aren't arrested for viewing shock sites or getting trolled or something. That's what I got from it, makes sense.
 

DudeistBelieve

TellEmSteveDave.com
Sep 9, 2010
4,771
1
0
shintakie10 said:
SaneAmongInsane said:
shintakie10 said:
SaneAmongInsane said:
BloatedGuppy said:
Esotera said:
This ruling is relatively sensible, as otherwise people who accidentally click http://website-hosting-cp.com could be prosecuted for their actions, despite not actively wanting to download it.

There needs to be legislation about viewing CP hundreds of times with relative frequency, but I think this is the right decision as it doesn't create bad legal precedents.
Yeah it's the "accidentally viewing it for several hours every day" element of this ruling that seems a little questionable. Obviously there needs to be protection for dullards who blithely click into mysterious links, but I kind of assumed something like that was already in place. This seems...more encompassing.

Not that I'm a lawyer, or fully understand the legal implications involved.
Seems like an easy way someone could set another person up. All you need is access to their computer with out them knowing.

I think the law is best left as is. Theres to many ways that could be abused if it's changed.
It already is abused horribly. The only reason no one seems to give a damn is because its bein abused by police and prosecutors to put people away when their only crime was lookin at somethin on the internet. Hell, its abused to put sex offender tags on 17 year olds who text naked pictures of themselves to their partners.

Child pornography laws are so horribly fucked that any progress like this is good progress. Hopefully one day people will get their heads out of their collective asses and realize viewin CP is a victimless crime. If a person rapes a child, go after that person with the full extent of the law. If a person molests a child, same thing. The people who give money to people who molest and rape children? Throw the fuckin book at em. However if a person simply views an image file on the internet and doesn't give a dime to anyone for it, leave them the fuck alone.
Dude, I would not go as far as to say it's victimless. Theres still the child being exploited.

I agree theres a lot of gray area with this shit though where the wrong people being prosecuted. But this is what happens when you have overzelious D.A.s that care more about their conviction rate then true justice.
Its victimless for the person watchin. They can do absolutely nothin to stop what for all they know happened 5 years ago by watchin somethin on the internet. The actual act of exploitin the child is the crime with a victim. If they watch some sort of livestream and don't report it, yeah there is a problem there because you absolutely know that someone, at this very moment, is bein hurt and you do nothin about it.

If you (and that you isn't specifically you, but a general you) can separate someone watchin someone else be killed in a video from the person who is actually killin someone. Why is it that you can't separate the person watchin CP from the person who is actively creatin CP?
I mean certainly it's victimless to the person that accidently stumbles across it. But to the guy actively seeking it out and jerking off to it? thats not victimless.

Same thing applies to your scenario, I think. if I'm actively seeking out a video of someone being murdered, I'm complicit.

Maybe thats the deciding difference I think? Fuck I don't know.
 

Zack Alklazaris

New member
Oct 6, 2011
1,938
0
0
I know a few people who have come across it accidentally. There are a variety of hosting websites where you might just randomly run into this crap. This is because while the pedophile is dumb enough to upload his illegal material to the fricken internet, he isn't dumb enough to call it something like "pedo porn bjs compilation". Its something random like "popsicles".


To the point this law was designed so innocent people don't go to jail, we can't always be blamed for what we uncover on the internet. We can however be blamed for what we personally download and distribute.
 

Auron225

New member
Oct 26, 2009
1,790
0
0
Why can't they make viewing it illegal and solve the cases with sound judgement? Is that so much to ask?

-This guy viewed 1 image of child porn, for 2.8 seconds, and that is all - I don't think he looked for it, I think he accidently stumbled upon it.

-This guy viewed 2,519 images over the course of 8 months - I don't think he stumbled upon all 2,519 images...
 

Dandark

New member
Sep 2, 2011
1,706
0
0
I see a lot of hate in this thread and although there are some people who don't just join the witch hunt which is nice.
Glad to see this law got passed as it's a step in the right direction and I can only hope more places use this kinda law.