Viewing child porn on the Web 'legal' in New York, state appeals court finds

[torch621]

Better yet, why don't we just ban ALL pornography. One doesn't have to look far to see the terrible havoc it has wreaked on our society in the form of sexual addiction, broken marriages and children screwed up for life.

Oh, right, I forgot, it's in the "privacy of one's own home" and doesn't affect anyone else, as the libertarians are always telling us.

[LilyM]

Originally Posted by torch621

Better yet, why don't we just ban ALL pornography. One doesn't have to look far to see the terrible havoc it has wreaked on our society in the form of sexual addiction, broken marriages and children screwed up for life.

Oh, right, I forgot, it's in the "privacy of one's own home" and doesn't affect anyone else, as the libertarians are always telling us.

And what happens when someone who doesn't like you decides to plant some regular porn (which is presumably much easier to gain access to than kiddy porn) on you or in your house because they don't like you?

And how do you decide what is 'porn' anyway? And who decides?

When Michelangelo painted the Sistine ceiling some didn't like the fact that he included nude images of humans. Never mind that they were not in the least sexualised, some of the images were painted over for a time.

And what happens if someone hacks into your computer and finds and publishes nude pictures of your wife that you took with the intent of never showing them to another living soul?

[LilyM]

Originally Posted by torch621

Better yet, why don't we just ban ALL pornography. One doesn't have to look far to see the terrible havoc it has wreaked on our society in the form of sexual addiction, broken marriages and children screwed up for life.

Oh, right, I forgot, it's in the "privacy of one's own home" and doesn't affect anyone else, as the libertarians are always telling us.

And what happens when someone who doesn't like you decides to plant some regular porn (which is presumably much easier to gain access to than kiddy porn) on you or in your house because they don't like you?

And how do you decide what is 'porn' anyway? And who decides?

When Michelangelo painted the Sistine ceiling some didn't like the fact that he included nude images of humans. Never mind that they were not in the least sexualised, some of the images were painted over for a time.

And what happens if someone hacks into your computer and finds and publishes totally consensual nude pictures of your wife that you took with the intent of never showing them to another living soul?

[Lokabrenna]

Originally Posted by LilyM

And how do you decide what is 'porn' anyway? And who decides?

This.

Case in point: in a recent thread, some were referring to certain scenes in Twilight as 'porn. Let me tell you, as someone who occasionally reads erotica, Twilight is nothing compared to some other stuff that gets published, and yet, some would call it 'porn' and see it banned from libraries.

[Lost_Sheep]

Most Internet browsers cache the content that is viewed onto the hard drive in the form of "temporary internet files" so the material has in fact been downloaded and stored, whether intentional or not. If you don't clean up your browser history, you could be caught with illegal material on your computer whether you knew it was there or not.

[TheTrueCentrist]

Originally Posted by Dawnia

For the most part, I agree with the decision. My issue is that it leaves a loophole for someone to actively search out child porn on the internet, view it online, but as long as they don't make a copy, etc. it's okay. I do see that the legislature is hurrying to fix the loophole caused by this reasoning...so the world may be right side up again.

I think you would be hard pressed to define the harm caused by such people. By only passively viewing CP (i.e. not buying, downloading, distributing, manufacturing, or molesting), the most they could possibly do is provide ad revenue to a website. So the only situation in which we could say that they support CP is if the owner of the website that receives the ad revenue uses the revenue to get more CP. This is highly unlikely for the following reasons:

1. Most websites where someone might passively view CP (e.g. the *chans) are not actually engaged in making/distributing CP. The CP would be posted as a prank or for shock value by anonymous users. Therefore, providing ad revenue to them does not support CP.

2. Websites that traffic in CP are typically on the deep web and such websites do not typically run ads. They would therefore not receive any ad revenue from a visit.

[TheTrueCentrist]

Originally Posted by torch621

Better yet, why don't we just ban ALL pornography. One doesn't have to look far to see the terrible havoc it has wreaked on our society in the form of sexual addiction, broken marriages and children screwed up for life.

Oh, right, I forgot, it's in the "privacy of one's own home" and doesn't affect anyone else, as the libertarians are always telling us.

There is evidence from several countries that the availability of pornography reduces the violent crime rate.

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/e...ents_rape.html

"More Net access, less rape." A 10 percent increase in Net access yields about a 7.3 percent decrease in reported rapes. States that adopted the Internet quickly saw the biggest declines.

[JimG]

Originally Posted by torch621

Better yet, why don't we just ban ALL pornography. One doesn't have to look far to see the terrible havoc it has wreaked on our society in the form of sexual addiction, broken marriages and children screwed up for life.

Oh, right, I forgot, it's in the "privacy of one's own home" and doesn't affect anyone else, as the libertarians are always telling us.

If all pornography were banned, the question is, how could such a ban be enforced with respect to the Internet? Once any computer is connected to the internet, it can receive feeds from anywhere in the world. Could such a ban keep porn from Russia or from some island in the Indian Ocean from entering your bedroom computer? Probably not.

And as long as we cannot effectively prevent porn from the Internet, I am extremely suspicious of the advisability of giving law enforcemet the ability to raid your home and search all your hard drives for possible criminal prosecution.

[Lost_Sheep]

Originally Posted by torch621

Better yet, why don't we just ban ALL pornography.

Easier said than done. There is no legal definition of pornography and unless you can define something, you cannot enforce a law against it.

[JimR-OCDS]

Well, my wife and myself were shocked when we read about a member of our parish, who was arrested yesterday for having child pornography on his computer.

The man is 75 years of age, and was highly involved with the Boy Scouts for over 30 years.

His son was in my Confirmation Class 25 years ago, and he himself became an Eagle Scout. He eventually ran for state rep but lost.

From all we knew, this was an outstanding member of the community, and a devote Catholic.,


We're praying for his poor wife and children. They must be carrying a heavy cross right now. And of course we're praying for him.


Jim

[Rich Olszewski]

Originally Posted by JimR-OCDS

Well, my wife and myself were shocked when we read about a member of our parish, who was arrested yesterday for having child pornography on his computer.

How was he caught with that stuff? A search of his home? Was there probable cause to issue a search warrant?

Perhaps he bought some stuff on the Internet and his e-mail address was among those identified when other arrests were made.

Very sad, indeed, even if he walks at the trial.

[JimR-OCDS]

Originally Posted by Rich Olszewski

How was he caught with that stuff? A search of his home? Was there probable cause to issue a search warrant?

Perhaps he bought some stuff on the Internet and his e-mail address was among those identified when other arrests were made.

Very sad, indeed, even if he walks at the trial.

All I know is that the cops(small town of just 4,000 people) got a tip, and some how monitored his internet activity. They then got a warrant and took his computer, which they
found child porn on it. They also found he had distributed child porn.

That being said, I still go with innocent until proven guilty.

I've read of two recent cases where a priest in one case and a teacher in another, were accused of the same crime, only to have computer forensic experts prove that their computers had been compromised. The priest case, it was students who had been using his lap top who downloaded the junk and emailed it to others.


Jim

[Rich Olszewski]

Originally Posted by JimR-OCDS

All I know is that the cops(small town of just 4,000 people) got a tip, and some how monitored his internet activity. They then got a warrant and took his computer, which they found child porn on it. They also found he had distributed child porn.

Distribution is really bad news, if it can be proven.

[JimR-OCDS]

Originally Posted by Rich Olszewski

Distribution is really bad news, if it can be proven.

Well distribution can mean emailing out porn.

We know that computer viruses have infected people's personal computers and emailed out the viruses using that person's contacts.


So, until proven guilty, have to go with innocent.

I hope for his family's sake that's the case, but word from around town is, it's not looking good for him.

Jim

[maltmom]

Also, be sure to make your wireless router password protected. If someone accesses the internet through your router you are legally responsible for their actions.