I ONLY LOOKED AT IT


Not Responsible for Content In Cache

I saw this earlier. And Wow.  I’m still trying to figure out what I think.

In a controversial decision that is already sparking debate around the country, the New York Court of Appeals ruled on Tuesday that viewing child pornography online is not a crime.

“The purposeful viewing of child pornography on the internet is now legal in New York,” Senior Judge Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick wrote in a majority decision for the court.

The decision came after Marist College professor James D. Kent was sentenced to prison in August 2009 after more than 100 images of child pornography were found on his computer’s cache.

Whenever someone views an image online, a copy of the image’s data is saved in the computer’s memory cache.

The ruling attempts to distinguish between individuals who see an image of child pornography online versus those who actively download and store such images, MSNBC reports. And in this case, it was ruled that a computer’s image cache is not the same as actively choosing to download and save an image.

“Merely viewing Web images of child pornography does not, absent other proof, constitute either possession or procurement within the meaning of our Penal Law,” Ciparick wrote in the decision.

See a copy of the court’s full ruling on the child pornography decision.

The court said it must be up to the legislature, not the courts, to determine what the appropriate response should be to those viewing images of child pornography without actually storing them. Currently, New York’s legislature has no laws deeming such action criminal.

I think there are two radically different ideas in that one block of text just like there is a million miles between actively seeking ANY digital content out and having it end up on your computer thru passive means. No one said it was “legal” to go ogle kiddie porn …just in order to protect innocent people, it sort of created a loophole of..non-illegality. If it were anything else, I’m not sure there would be this sort of hullabaloo about it.

It’s about time a news story happens about a law that is passed with the majority in mind. This is how it is supposed to work. I feel like .. I play on the internet a LOT and I want the system to work  exactly like this. Sorry, but I do not care what “The Guy Across The Street From You” is doing if I could be sent to prison merely for having been to some malware infected site that splash-screens me some shit I was absolutely not intending to see.

This is not much different than… during a park’s operating hours? It is legal for anyone to go there. Might a pervert go to a park and salivate over some kid playing there? Perhaps. But we don’t trip on that because we work on the assumption that the majority are not there for that reason. And overturning this ruling would be like saying “IT IS ABSOLUTELY ILLEGAL FOR *ANY* ADULT TO BE AT THAT PARK CUZ SOMEONE COULD GET AROUSED BY A CHILD THERE”

While we understand that a few MIGHT (probably will) exploit the rule, this is the better alternative. It’s always right, in my opinion, to go with the way that protects ‘everyone.’

In other posts, I have bemoaned the fact that I “sided with Nazis.”  I do not feel I am this time.   I have no sympathy for pedophiles.  None.   In fact, I sort of feel that now that we’ve sorted things for people that got this shit on their computers unintentionally, there should be some focus on WHERE one gets that stuff on their image cache at all.  To figure out what IS intentional and what is not.

Advertisements

~ by Layla on May 10, 2012.

Got Somethin' to Say?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: