[Spartacus]

Just viewing child pornography on the Web is not necessarily a crime according to New York law, the state's Court of Appeals decided Tuesday, but upheld the conviction of the appellant by a county court on other counts of storage of images and video of child pornography on his hard disk.

A dissenting judge has however recommended that the legislature review and amend the state law to reflect new online technologies.

Cached links to child pornography websites were allegedly found on the browser of the computer of defendant James D. Kent, a professor of public administration at a Dutchess County college.

But Kent claimed that merely "accessing and displaying" Web images of child pornography does not constitute procurement for the purposes of penal law. He said he was not aware of the cache function in his Firefox browser.

Presenting the majority view, Judge Carmen Ciparick observed that regardless of the defendant's awareness of his computer's cache function, the files stored in the cache may constitute evidence of images that were previously viewed, according to court documents.

But to possess those images, the defendant had to do more than viewing to "encompass more affirmative acts of control such as printing, downloading or saving," the Judge said.

"We further conclude that merely viewing Web images of child pornography does not, absent other proof, constitute either possession or procurement within the meaning of our Penal Law," the Judge added.

Federal law relating to child pornography provides that any person who either "knowingly possesses, or knowingly accesses with intent to view, any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, computer disk, or any other material that contains an image of child pornography" is subject to a fine and imprisonment.

In contrast, the law in New York does not have comparable language, the Judge said. The provisions of the penal law at issue do not contain comparable language targeted toward the "pull technology" by which one accesses and views Internet images. "The words that are employed -- "procures" and "possesses" -- would not, in ordinary speech, encompass the act of viewing," she added.

In an opinion, Judge Victoria Graffeo said that the result of the majority's view is that the purposeful viewing of child pornography on the Internet is now legal in New York.

"A person can view hundreds of these images, or watch hours of real-time videos of children subjected to sexual encounters, and as long as those images are not downloaded, printed or further distributed, such conduct is not proscribed," Judge Graffeo said.

As pornography on the web is digital and intangible and cannot be covered under the term "possessed" in the state law, the legislature needs to revisit this definition if its intention has been to extend the scope of proscribed conduct to the intentional Internet viewing of child pornography, Judge Graffeo added.

The cached images and other content on Kent's office computer were said to have been found when staff of the college's IT department investigated his hard drive as his computer was malfunctioning. Kent claimed he was considering research on the regulation of child pornography.

John Ribeiro covers outsourcing and general technology breaking news from India for The IDG News Service. Follow John on Twitter at @Johnribeiro. John's e-mail address is [email protected]

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/ar...rules.html

who voted in the law should see sex video child ... this is crazy are just kids

I don't think you can press any charges for someone that has watched child pornography, but if they have some in their possession then yeah it is a crime.

[ARYA!]

people who watch child porn or encourage it in any way shud be fuckin castrated and have dogs set loose on em!!! ( huge rottweillers shuld do just fine ) IMO. but thats jus me . :o

http://www.asacp.org/
The Association of Sites Advocating Child Protection work with U.S. Customs Service and the FBI to enforce anti-child pornography laws.

people who watch child porn or encourage it in any way shud be fuckin castrated and have dogs set loose on em!!! ( huge rottweillers shuld do just fine ) IMO. but thats jus me . :o

Yeah, I don't have much sympathy for people who support/watch child pornography either.  Pretty fucked up.

It definitely is fucked up. People who find child pornography a turn on and demonstrate pedophiliac behaviour really need to learn to suppress their sexual drive because their sexual desires will never be mutually consensual (and even if it is, it would be illegal).

It goes without saying that I find it despicable.

Should just viewing child porn be illegal? (it's not the act itself) On the other hand: it's been long known that a lot of people who search for and watch child porn will eventually try to commit an act of pedophilia.
I think given the seriousness of the matter, it's wise to make/keep watching child porn illegal as well.


Should society put them in jail or in a psychiatric facility? If you put them in jail without treatment, chances are very high they just go on with their ways. I've also read that treatment doesn't work, or works very poorly, so what do you do then? I think chemical castration should be the last option if you know for sure treatment doesn't work.

I think the focus should be on preventing these offenses from happening (again) instead on just revenge.
If you think making the punishment as hard as possible will prevent these crimes, you're mistaken.

Woh woh wow, take it easy here boys..

These people who find "Child Porn" is a "Turn on" have rights, don't they?
Their no different from the Homosexuals (Gay People), who have their own Sexual way of life.

Since you accept certain form of pervert-ism, you should have no problem with other forms of Pervert-ism. or what?

Yes, they have rights, the same rights as everyone. But they also have to abide the same laws as everyone.

The difference is that pedophilia is basically always considered as rape because of the age of the victim . Children are not capable of giving consent.