Rue Posted May 19, 2012 Report Share Posted May 19, 2012 New York State has ruled that simply viewing child porn on the internet is not illegal: "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. link This is the key: "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. The above law conforms with the basic concept of mens rea. You must prove criminal intent to prove someone guilty of a crime. It has always been a premises of any criminal law and always will. Its clear some on the web site do not understand the above concept was never altered by child porn laws and it also appears to me some of the people on this forum seem a little preoccupied with their own porn collections. For you or anyone else to have to explain the need for child porn regulation speaks for itself, so do the comments trying to sweep it all as one unfair police action. To render this issue down to a simplistic reference to Penthouse magazines indicates that some of your testacled readers need to trvialize the issue. This was not about arresting people for having Penthouse magazine and underage models in that magazine. It is however about the wide-spread, global and organized criminal behaviour of using children as sexual tools in porno which is then distributed world wide. This is about trying to regulate a series of elaborate organized networks of pedophiles using the inter-net to not just dispense pedophile pornography but recruit, abuse and kill children and advetise countries and resorts where one can travel to, to exploit children. To sit on one's fat ass and try reduce this to an invasion of their right to masterbate themselves to Tracy Lord's face is par for the course. Someone tell any of the righteous testacle sacks on this board that no one could care less about their need to look at naked women, go to strip joints and surf the porno sites. No one cares. Start using child porn sites and downloading child porn then society has a right to nail your ass and I hope they do. Any of you want to know what it is like to have to work with children spit up and grinded out by the sex porn industry give me a shout. Try whining about your fretting over your old porno magazines and innocent intentions and of course I will tell you to shut up. The focus of this debate should be on the rights of children and their right to be protected by adults-not any of you who fret over your porno access rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleeding heart Posted May 19, 2012 Report Share Posted May 19, 2012 Any of you want to know what it is like to have to work with children spit up and grinded out by the sex porn industry give me a shout. Try whining about your fretting over your old porno magazines and innocent intentions and of course I will tell you to shut up. The focus of this debate should be on the rights of children and their right to be protected by adults-not any of you who fret over your porno access rights. To whom exactly are you referring? This post seems to veer close to a total non sequiter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted May 19, 2012 Report Share Posted May 19, 2012 (edited) Someone tell any of the righteous testacle sacks on this board that no one could care less about their need to look at naked women, go to strip joints and surf the porno sites. No one cares. Start using child porn sites and downloading child porn then society has a right to nail your ass and I hope they do. Any of you want to know what it is like to have to work with children spit up and grinded out by the sex porn industry give me a shout. Try whining about your fretting over your old porno magazines and innocent intentions and of course I will tell you to shut up. The focus of this debate should be on the rights of children and their right to be protected by adults-not any of you who fret over your porno access rights. I thank you, Rue, for giving us a perfect example of why we should not allow hysterics to influence our law. Your hysterics on this issue, combined with your contempt for men - almost a cliche of the emasculated males one finds so often on the far fringes of the Left are almost a perfect testament of why people like you should have no part or place in any undertaking which concerns justice or law. Most thinking people certainly support banning child porn. Most thinking people, however, and this is where you depart from that group, would like the laws more tightly focused on actual pedophiles and child molesters. For all your spitting outrage that anyone would dare to protest the over-broad nature of these laws, and all your self-righteous certainty that the laws are not intended for that purpose - well, they nevertheless function that way. Your sneering contempt and insults towards the male gender is, once again, almost a cliche of the emasculated, feminized male who loathes his very gender. What a repulsive rant that was! What self-loathing you must live with! The fact remains that these laws are far too broad, and that, notwithstanding the hysterics of certain types of people, child porn is not really an industry at all, and not really much of a threat to children either. It is a a grain of sand compared to the beach which is alcoholic and drug fueled abuse at the hands of older relatives. That doesn't mean we should ignore it, nor that we shouldn't punish those who engage in it, but it does mean hysterical laws written by hysterical old women ought not to be justified simply on the basis that they claim 'they protect children'. That's especially so given the nearly total lack of evidence to that effect. The truth is, though, that most of the more zealous defenders of these laws, and their over-broad nature, have, even if they don't admit it as openly as you, a deep contempt and fear of all aspects of male sexuality. They find anything that appeals to male sexuality, anything that invokes male 'lust' to be evil, and so are quite content with the thought of harmless men being sucked into the judicial system. After all, even if they never raped any woman or child, they WANTED to, because they're males. And as all the ultra feminists know, that's what men are all about. Aren't you glad you're not one... Edited May 19, 2012 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleeding heart Posted May 19, 2012 Report Share Posted May 19, 2012 I thank you, Rue, for giving us a perfect example of why we should not allow hysterics to influence our law. Your hysterics on this issue, combined with your contempt for men - almost a cliche of the emasculated males one finds so often on the far fringes of the Left are almost a perfect testament of why people like you should have no part or place in any undertaking which concerns justice or law. Most thinking people certain support banning child porn. Most thinking people, however, and this is where you depart from that group, would like the laws more tightly focused on actual pedophiles and child molesters. For all your spitting outrage that anyone would dare to protest the over-broad nature of these laws, and all your self-righteous certainty that the laws are not intended for that purpose - well, they nevertheless function that way. Your sneering contempt and insults towards the male gender is, once again, almost a cliche of the emasculated, feminized male who loathes his very gender. What a repulsive rant that was! What self-loathing you must live with! The fact remains that these laws are far too broad, and that, notwithstanding the hysterics of certain types of people, child porn is not really an industry at all, and not really much of a threat to children either. It is a a grain of sand compared to the beach which is alcoholic and drug fueled abuse at the hands of older relatives. That doesn't mean we should ignore it, nor that we shouldn't punish those who engage in it, but it does mean hysterical laws written by hysterical old women ought not to be justified simply on the basis that they claim 'they protect children'. That's especially so given the nearly total lack of evidence to that effect. The truth is, though, that most of the more zealous defenders of these laws, and their over-broad nature, have, even if they don't admit it as openly as you, a deep contempt and fear of all aspects of male sexuality. They find anything that appeals to male sexuality, anything that invokes male 'lust' to be evil, and so are quite content with the thought of harmless men being sucked into the judicial system. After all, even if they never raped any woman or child, they WANTED to, because they're males. And as all the ultra feminists know, that's what men are all about. Aren't you glad you're not one... Most of this is good, and Rue well-deserved it for the reasons you say.,..but what's this cult of masculinity you're worshipping, and you're derision of the feminine...coupled with your (ridiculous) notion of "emasculated males"....of the "left"? That's silly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted May 19, 2012 Report Share Posted May 19, 2012 Most of this is good, and Rue well-deserved it for the reasons you say.,..but what's this cult of masculinity you're worshipping, and you're derision of the feminine...coupled with your (ridiculous) notion of "emasculated males"....of the "left"? That's silly. Hey, I love the feminine, just not in men. And I don't love shrill, apologetic men who think that masculine traits are offensive to their delicate and dainty sensibilities. Most of the women I know are a lot tougher than those 'men'. And while it might be an old fashioned view, toughness of the mind is still a trait I admire, emotional and mental weakness still traits I hold in contempt. And what else would you call a guy who seems so disgusted at 'testicle sacks'? I mean, have you ever heard anyone outside the worst man-hating lesbians use terms like that before? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleeding heart Posted May 20, 2012 Report Share Posted May 20, 2012 Hey, I love the feminine, just not in men. And I don't love shrill, apologetic men who think that masculine traits are offensive to their delicate and dainty sensibilities. Most of the women I know are a lot tougher than those 'men'. And while it might be an old fashioned view, toughness of the mind is still a trait I admire, emotional and mental weakness still traits I hold in contempt. And what else would you call a guy who seems so disgusted at 'testicle sacks'? I mean, have you ever heard anyone outside the worst man-hating lesbians use terms like that before? Listen, I get it, I really do. Rue's post was indeed shrill and misdirected. But just for clarity, Rue is no radical lefty. They've been his primary target all along. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted May 20, 2012 Report Share Posted May 20, 2012 Any of you want to know what it is like to have to work with children spit up and grinded out by the sex porn industry give me a shout. Try whining about your fretting over your old porno magazines and innocent intentions and of course I will tell you to shut up. The focus of this debate should be on the rights of children and their right to be protected by adults-not any of you who fret over your porno access rights. It sounds as if you have good reason to be passionate about this issue, and I respect that, and I wholeheartedly agree with your stand regarding the children and the adults who purposely seek such 'pleasure.' I do think, however, that in light of how computer caches and search engines work, innocent adults have been victims too, and that's what this law, as far as I see it, protects people from. I would hope it does nothing to in any way protect the actual culprits, but I do think it's necessary to protect innocent people whose lives have been/could be changed even though they've done nothing wrong - which is why I posted about the law, which I do support. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted May 20, 2012 Report Share Posted May 20, 2012 (edited) Argus said:... harmless men ... I think men who view child porn, and those who defend them should have their "testacle sacks" removed and fed to them. Edited May 20, 2012 by jacee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleeding heart Posted May 20, 2012 Report Share Posted May 20, 2012 I think men who view child porn, and those who defend them should have their "testacle sacks" removed and fed to them. As far as I understand the argument, it centers around people viewing pornography who accidentally get child porn content on their computers, without ever actively searching for it or intentionally downloading it. That active behaviour, of course, must and does remain illegal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted May 20, 2012 Report Share Posted May 20, 2012 I think men who view child porn, and those who defend them should have their "testacle sacks" removed and fed to them. I think that punishment and justice should be in the control of thinking people, not ignorant and hysterical old women. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted May 20, 2012 Report Share Posted May 20, 2012 As far as I understand the argument, it centers around people viewing pornography who accidentally get child porn content on their computers, without ever actively searching for it or intentionally downloading it. That active behaviour, of course, must and does remain illegal. Actually, if you go back to the OP, the argument was whether pedophiles, who have what psychiatrists consider to be a mental illness, should be treated as sick people as opposed to as criminals. I don't have an issue with them being treated as criminals when they assault children. I'm less sanguine about the way the hysterics out there have pushed the child porn agenda and broadened the definition of child porn to unrecognizable extremes. To hear some of these people child porn is a multi trillion dollar industry controlled by immense criminal companies bigger than Apple and luring tens of millions of children into their nefarious schemes every other day. And thus any argument for weakening of the child porn laws (all that stands between innocent children and these armies of perverts, you know) is virtually criminal in itself. Maybe it's because I was around when the first child porn law was created, and remember exactly why it was created (As a cynical effort o the part of the tories to lure the opposition into voting against it prior to an expected election). I remember the arguments made against it, when it was still considered acceptable to dare to do such a thing, by the bar associations, artists groups and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. Since then, of course, the hysterics have made it even more broad, even more absurdly punitive, to the point a pedophile molesting a child can face less punishment in many jurisdictions than one who just looks at a picture on the internet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted May 20, 2012 Report Share Posted May 20, 2012 I think that punishment and justice should be in the control of thinking people, not ignorant and hysterical old women. I think men who keep resurrecting this scum thread in order to defend their right to child porn are thinking with the wrong head, and deserve to lose both of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted May 20, 2012 Report Share Posted May 20, 2012 (edited) I think men who keep resurrecting this scum thread in order to defend their right to child porn are thinking with the wrong head, and deserve to lose both of them. I think stupid women who can't tell the difference between arguing a point of law and wanting to watch child porn ought to lose their house the way Stockwell Day almost lost his. Edited May 20, 2012 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted May 20, 2012 Report Share Posted May 20, 2012 (edited) I think stupid women who can't tell the difference between arguing a point of law and wanting to watch child porn ought to lose their house the way Stockwell Day almost lost his. In defence of child porn, Argus said ... ... the hysterics ... ... hysterical old women ... ... shrill, apologetic men who think that masculine traits are offensive to their delicate and dainty sensibilities ... ... man-hating lesbians ... ... emasculated males one finds so often on the far fringes of the Left... ... emasculated, feminized male who loathes his very gender... And finally ... ... stupid women ... ought to lose their house ... WTF ?!?! Aren't you just a bit hysterical? Don't you think you should just take a step back from your keyboard and let it go ... let the hysteria subside ... perhaps let this scum thread die the death it deserves? Edited May 20, 2012 by jacee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted May 21, 2012 Report Share Posted May 21, 2012 Aren't you just a bit hysterical? Don't you think you should just take a step back from your keyboard and let it go ... let the hysteria subside ... perhaps let this scum thread die the death it deserves? I think I've responded appropriately given the extremely low level of discourse offered up by you two. I have an alternate suggestion. Since neither of you have the intellect to discuss issues like this either rationally or intelligently why don't you just bugger off? Find a topic about reality television. It might be a bit highbrow for you, but stretch for it and it should be within reach. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted May 21, 2012 Report Share Posted May 21, 2012 The above law conforms with the basic concept of mens rea. You must prove criminal intent to prove someone guilty of a crime. Only certain laws. Criminal negligence for example doesn't need intent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted May 21, 2012 Report Share Posted May 21, 2012 Men need to be manly or they're worthless apparently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted May 21, 2012 Report Share Posted May 21, 2012 Men need to be manly or they're worthless apparently. Not to worry ... Argus' view of what's "manly" is quite bizarre and entirely unattractive to women ... possibly the source of his apparent frustration and anger? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted May 21, 2012 Report Share Posted May 21, 2012 Not to worry ... Argus' view of what's "manly" is quite bizarre and entirely unattractive to women ... possibly the source of his apparent frustration and anger? I believe you are mistaking contempt for ignorance with anger. Apparently this is out of some desperate need to feel like you're accomplishing something by taunting 'right wingers' - who you seem to think is anyone who believes in capitalism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted May 21, 2012 Report Share Posted May 21, 2012 Men need to be manly or they're worthless apparently. If by 'manly' you mean NOT a shrill, whiny, cringing, apologetic fool, then yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted May 21, 2012 Report Share Posted May 21, 2012 I believe you are mistaking contempt for ignorance with anger. Apparently this is out of some desperate need to feel like you're accomplishing something by taunting 'right wingers' - who you seem to think is anyone who believes in capitalism. You got it wrong, its anyone who does not share her narrow-minded perspective. If you don't see things like her you are a criminal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.