Viewing Child Porn Online - NOW LEGAL in NY!!

[Truth B Knowncaptain of 100]

The moral decline of the nation is only getting worse. Obama just came out today in support of gay marriage. It won't be long before this happens at the hands of the Lord...

[Juliettecaptain of 1,000]

[jonesdecaptain of 1,000]

If only there weren't so many people who believed that legal = moral and/or that illegal = immoral, then we wouldn't have to worry so much about this.

[sadie_Mormoncaptain of 1,000]

"And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived. And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth." Revelation 18:23-24 KJV

[awar_ecaptain of 100]

When I was in high school, divorce was nearly impossible in New York. What a world we now live in.

[AGStackercaptain of 100]

I remember hearing something from one of those LDS prophets... hmmm what was his name?

Either way, I remember him saying something about New York being swallowed up in the waves of the sea.

[Fairmindedcaptain of 1,000]

Interesting that you can be labeled a terrorist for having more than a week's worth of food in the house, but according to NY courts it's perfectly all right to possess videos of children being abused and exploited. It's like the MDGs are taking every opportunity to call good evil and evil good. Not to mention the double standard of people having their lives destroyed at the very suspicion of child abuse, meanwhile the courts are making it legal to possess byproducts (evidence, profit motive incentive) of such vile activities.

The world TPTB are creating is absolutely sickening. It's no wonder that in the scriptures God encouraged the righteous to leave societies that had reached a certain level of wickedness. Imminent destruction aside, what kind of person would want to live in such a place?

[sadie_Mormoncaptain of 1,000]

This is the stuff that makes parents more skittish about sleep overs, walking to the bus stop alone, playing in the neighborhood, and anything else kids might be doing without their parents. I give my kids a lot of space compared to other parents but its stuff like this that gets me very concerned for all our children.

We need to project children not marginalize them.

[7cylon7captain of 1,000]

You all have missed the entire point of this article. Of course child porn is a gross sin. But this article is trying to describe and articulate is that the courts don't really understand what POSSESSION of child porn is. It states in the article that the pictures where in cache. Which all of us have and you can do a search right now about "loving Children" on google images and on the second or third grouping there is a naked child in plain view. That is child porn. I have seen OBGYN doctors and in their offices have naked pictures of children all over the office. Is that PORN? They should all be in prison for such photos. Do any of you have photos of your children without clothes on at the back yard pool or water hose. We have all seen those so called cute pictures... are they porn photos. How about those photos in everybody's family albums of nude children, is that child porn?

If you did that search that picture is now in your cache, better clean that up before the FBI comes and hauls you off to jail.

And get this...

The technical details revolve around copies of deleted files that remained in the cache of Kent's Web browser, which were the basis of the two counts that were dismissed. They were discovered, along with other materials, during a virus scan that Kent had requested because his computer was running slowly.

To demonstrate possession of the images in the cache, "the defendant's conduct must exceed mere viewing," Ciparick wrote, adding that "the mere existence of an image automatically stored in a cache" isn't enough.

This is what this article is about. People jump to conclusion so fast just because they read a headline which is in fact meant to be eye popping to get a reaction from you.

[7cylon7captain of 1,000]

Just to follow up.

Kent's convictions on the other counts rested on other evidence, including a folder on his machine that stored about 13,000 saved images of girls whom investigators estimated to be 8 or 9 years old and four messages to an unidentified third party discussing a research project into the regulation of child pornography.

He was convicted on this account. 13,000 images on his hard drive. This guy had a problem, no argument there.

So the headline that "it's okay to view child porn in NY" is deceiving and misleading, please people do your homework.

[Fairmindedcaptain of 1,000]

You all have missed the entire point of this article. Of course child porn is a gross sin. But this article is trying to describe and articulate is that the courts don't really understand what POSSESSION of child porn is. It states in the article that the pictures where in cache. Which all of us have and you can do a search right now about "loving Children" on google images and on the second or third grouping there is a naked child in plain view. That is child porn. I have seen OBGYN doctors and in their offices have naked pictures of children all over the office. Is that PORN? They should all be in prison for such photos. Do any of you have photos of your children without clothes on at the back yard pool or water hose. We have all seen those so called cute pictures... are they porn photos. How about those photos in every bodies family albums of nude children, is that child porn?

If you did that search that picture is now in your cache, better clean that up before the FBI comes and hauls you off to jail.

And get this...

The technical details revolve around copies of deleted files that remained in the cache of Kent's Web browser, which were the basis of the two counts that were dismissed. They were discovered, along with other materials, during a virus scan that Kent had requested because his computer was running slowly.

To demonstrate possession of the images in the cache, "the defendant's conduct must exceed mere viewing," Ciparick wrote, adding that "the mere existence of an image automatically stored in a cache" isn't enough.

This is what this article is about. People jump to conclusion so fast just because they read a headline which is in fact meant to be eye popping to get a reaction from you.

Thanks for clarifying. You're right, I didn't actually read the article. If this is just another example of a government witch hunt using evidence they probably obtained illegally, that changes things completely.

Man, you can't trust anything you read these days without looking into it deeper.

[awar_ecaptain of 100]

The judges who hear of that case will also jump to conclusions.The factc is, the nation has been taken over from within by pure rot.

[jonesdecaptain of 1,000]

You all have missed the entire point of this article. Of course child porn is a gross sin. But this article is trying to describe and articulate is that the courts don't really understand what POSSESSION of child porn is. It states in the article that the pictures where in cache. Which all of us have and you can do a search right now about "loving Children" on google images and on the second or third grouping there is a naked child in plain view. That is child porn. I have seen OBGYN doctors and in their offices have naked pictures of children all over the office. Is that PORN? They should all be in prison for such photos. Do any of you have photos of your children without clothes on at the back yard pool or water hose. We have all seen those so called cute pictures... are they porn photos. How about those photos in every bodies family albums of nude children, is that child porn?

If you did that search that picture is now in your cache, better clean that up before the FBI comes and hauls you off to jail.

And get this...

The technical details revolve around copies of deleted files that remained in the cache of Kent's Web browser, which were the basis of the two counts that were dismissed. They were discovered, along with other materials, during a virus scan that Kent had requested because his computer was running slowly.

To demonstrate possession of the images in the cache, "the defendant's conduct must exceed mere viewing," Ciparick wrote, adding that "the mere existence of an image automatically stored in a cache" isn't enough.

This is what this article is about. People jump to conclusion so fast just because they read a headline which is in fact meant to be eye popping to get a reaction from you.

Thanks for adding some sanity to the discussion.

There is a problem in the USA with parents being separated from their children (sometimes by going to prison, sometimes by the children just being taken away and the parents left otherwise alone) because some people in this country want the government to have power to enforce these sorts of laws, and courts have had a hard time drawing the line... and so-called "Family Services" (DCFS, or whatever the acronym is for your state) have an even harder time drawing the line. Pictures of your own kids without enough on is enough to send you to the same prison cell as this guy who had thousands of pictures of other children in various states of undress.

To make it more ridiculous, the age for a "child" in these cases is under 18 in most states, meaning that teenagers can be (and frequently are) arrested and have a criminal record for possessing or distributing child pornography even when it is an image of their own body, or the body of a friend who they may have seen unclothed in many innocent circumstances (including school locker rooms, etc). Should we encourage this behavior? No. But should we give such young people a criminal record for it? No.

If you think that juvenile records have no bearing in court cases later in life, even if they are theoretically "expunged", then you are flat out wrong... especially for sex crimes such as these they are used by prosecutors to establish a mental condition that justifies conviction and harsher sentencing (often aided by the very therapists who are supposed to be helping people overcome such weaknesses, but who have a profit motive assisted by the state to do otherwise).

On the flip side you have people crying out about the wickedness of our society because of the decisions of corrupt, secular judges or lawmakers. What does their judgment matter? They care more about perpetuating their system of theft and power than they do about justice.

The very concept that their judgments would be similar to God's judgment is unthinkable. And yet, so many people (even in this thread) have expressed that these corrupt individuals should judge according to the commandments of God and failure to do so will bring upon us the wrath of God.

They should neither be entrusted nor expected to do so. It simply isn't reasonable in a secular and wicked world. Having wicked lawmakers and judges will not make a wicked society more righteous.

When there are clear cases of child abuse, including abusing a child's body for sexual material, then some response is warranted. But even then, if there is no actual injury to the child that can be proven, can we trust lawmakers and judges to decide? It's a great way to break up innocent and even righteous families because some petty bureaucrat doesn't like the way they live... and more and more it is the most righteous and moral ways of living that upset the bureaucrats.

[sadie_Mormoncaptain of 1,000]

Do any of you have photos of your children without clothes on at the back yard pool or water hose. We have all seen those so called cute pictures... are they porn photos. How about those photos in everybody's family albums of nude children, is that child porn?
...
This is what this article is about. People jump to conclusion so fast just because they read a headline which is in fact meant to be eye popping to get a reaction from you.

I'll be the first to admit I didn't read the article so I'm one of those quick to react ones

Anyway, what you said about the pictures being in your cache would simply trigger the FBI and whoever else to go after you is even more disturbing! How do you get away from this intrusion? I feel like I'm in a box and can't find the door out!!

[HeirofNumenorthe Heir Of Numenor]

As I read it, it also provides wiggle room for someone to surf for the kiddie-porn, view it, and as long as they don't save the pics, they can be excused on a reasonable doubt that they came across it accidentally. I think that is what the anti-porn group (Porn Harms) is rightfully concerned with...

In the judge's decision, IF the man was telling the truth, that someone else used his computer and he didn't even know he had an internet cache...then yeah, the judge's decision was correct - IN THAT PARTICULAR INSTANCE...but the fact the guy had thousands of pics in a file folder, and a note saying I can't give you a disc of these without breaking any more laws- pretty well convicts him big-time...

[karen2cruisecaptain of 100]

I am begging parents everywhere to purchase routers or software programs to filter this filth from their homes.

http://reviews.cnet.com/routers/iboss-h ... 69195.html

http://www.amazon.com/CyberSafe247-Pare ... B0054ICISU

http://www.practicallynetworked.com/sec ... ntrols.htm

http://news.yahoo.com/pandora-hope-llc- ... 05411.html

http://www.godandscience.org/general/op ... ilter.html

[pjbrowniecaptain of 1,000]

Yes but we do want to be careful. A few years ago we had some Scouters call and complain because they were going to a website called Boyslife.something which was bringing up child porn images and not the Scouting magazine, which can found at boyslife.org. If you were convicted for just viewing something because you typed in a bad URL or it popped up, that wouldn't be proper. Of course, in this instance, this professor appears to have intent to view many images 13,000 but also possess.

[JohnnyLcaptain of 1,000]

As I read it, it also provides wiggle room for someone to surf for the kiddie-porn, view it, and as long as they don't save the pics, they can be excused on a reasonable doubt that they came across it accidentally. I think that is what the anti-porn group (Porn Harms) is rightfully concerned with...

In the judge's decision, IF the man was telling the truth, that someone else used his computer and he didn't even know he had an internet cache...then yeah, the judge's decision was correct - IN THAT PARTICULAR INSTANCE...but the fact the guy had thousands of pics in a file folder, and a note saying I can't give you a disc of these without breaking any more laws- pretty well convicts him big-time...

Second.
All you need is one browser hijack, one mistype, ...
If I'm not mistaken, if you ask for a scan and it comes up, you invited the law in, nothing illegal about it. If the FBI stopped your computer at the airport and checked it out with no good reason, that's a different story. But then, if HLS did it, maybe not...