Scumbag activist judges in NY

[paullud]

How can they consider viewing child porn legal? It seems you would be in possession when it is on your computer.

Viewing child pornography online not a crime: New York court ruling | The Sideshow - Yahoo! News

 

[BobWolf]

Yep, its peraty bad that in New York state you go to jail for up to five years for hurting an animal
but a District Attorney will be hard pressed put a pediphile in jail for a year.

 

[cheri1122]

How can they consider viewing child porn legal? It seems you would be in possession when it is on your computer.

Viewing child pornography online not a crime: New York court ruling | The Sideshow - Yahoo! News

Before you express your moral outrage in popular buzzword name calling, perhaps you ought to reconsider the agenda this particular activist is promoting: legislation that corrects the loophole in current laws, written by legislators who apparently don't understand how computers work.
The judge pointed out what the law actually says - now it's up to legislators to correct their error.
Of course, that still leaves the issue of exactly whose hands were on the keyboard at the time.....

 

[paullud]

Before you express your moral outrage in popular buzzword name calling, perhaps you ought to reconsider the agenda this particular activist is promoting: legislation that corrects the loophole in current laws, written by legislators who apparently don't understand how computers work.
The judge pointed out what the law actually says - now it's up to legislators to correct their error.
Of course, that still leaves the issue of exactly whose hands were on the keyboard at the time.....

The child pornography was on the computer and the guy had clearly used the computer to view it, end of story. The idea that they were looking for a way to interpret the law to make the activity of watching child porn legal is just disgusting.

Sent from my ADR6400L using EO Forums

 

[cheri1122]

The child pornography was on the computer and the guy had clearly used the computer to view it, end of story.
The idea that they were looking for a way to interpret the law to make the activity of watching child porn legal is just disgusting.

You just don't get it: the judge wasn't 'looking for a way to interpret the law to make the activity of watching child porn legal' at all - he pointed out that the law, AS WRITTEN, does not make viewing child porn illegal. Therefore, he can not penalize anyone for doing it.
When the legislators who wrote the law amend it to include the act of viewing, THEN it will be against the law.
And then they will have to figure out how to prove exactly who viewed it - remember how Casey Anthony's defense insisted she wasn't to be blamed for looking up 'chloroform' on the family computer, because her parents had access to the computer also?
Same problem with obscene/harassing phone calls: proving it was made from a specific phone doesn't prove the owner is the guilty party.





Sent from my ADR6400L using EO Forums

 

[paullud]

You just don't get it: the judge wasn't 'looking for a way to interpret the law to make the activity of watching child porn legal' at all - he pointed out that the law, AS WRITTEN, does not make viewing child porn illegal. Therefore, he can not penalize anyone for doing it.
When the legislators who wrote the law amend it to include the act of viewing, THEN it will be against the law.
And then they will have to figure out how to prove exactly who viewed it - remember how Casey Anthony's defense insisted she wasn't to be blamed for looking up 'chloroform' on the family computer, because her parents had access to the computer also?
Same problem with obscene/harassing phone calls: proving it was made from a specific phone doesn't prove the owner is the guilty party.

It is you that doesn't get it, try and understand the process I am talking about. The guy had child porn stored in the cache on his computer because he was viewing it, therefore he was in possession of child porn. Using your reasoning and the activist judge's reasoning he could own negatives of child porn and he is fine as long as he doesn't develop them. He can sit there and watch videos of children being raped but because he doesn't save the file you would say he isn't in possession. The child porn is on the computer and he put it there, just because he didn't click save doesn't give him a loophole unless you are looking for a reason to make what he did legal. If that isn't clear to you then there is also part of the law which makes it illegal to promote child porn which viewing it would also promote it.

Sent from my ADR6400L using EO Forums

 

[OldGuy]

You both are arguing different points.
lol

Yes the porn was technically 'on his computer' in way of a cache file.

No the judge wasn't trying to legalize the porn, he's looking to get just the opposite passed via legislation.

 

[BigCat]

Basically the judge says it ok as long as it isn't saved or printed. So he is saying its ok to view which is just sick.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[scottm4211]

The judge is pointing out the flaw in how the law is currently written. Nothing more.
From the article:

As The Atlantic Wire notes, under current New York law, "it is illegal to create, possess, distribute, promote or facilitate child pornography." But that leaves out one critical distinction, as Judge Ciparick stated in the court's decision.



"ome affirmative act is required (printing, saving, downloading, etc.) to show that defendant in fact exercised dominion and control over the images that were on his screen," Ciparick wrote. "To hold otherwise, would extend the reach of (state law) to conduct—viewing—that our Legislature has not deemed criminal."

 

[witness23]

The child pornography was on the computer and the guy had clearly used the computer to view it, end of story.
The idea that they were looking for a way to interpret the law to make the activity of watching child porn legal is just disgusting.

You just don't get it: the judge wasn't 'looking for a way to interpret the law to make the activity of watching child porn legal' at all - he pointed out that the law, AS WRITTEN, does not make viewing child porn illegal. Therefore, he can not penalize anyone for doing it.
When the legislators who wrote the law amend it to include the act of viewing, THEN it will be against the law.
And then they will have to figure out how to prove exactly who viewed it - remember how Casey Anthony's defense insisted she wasn't to be blamed for looking up 'chloroform' on the family computer, because her parents had access to the computer also?
Same problem with obscene/harassing phone calls: proving it was made from a specific phone doesn't prove the owner is the guilty party.





Sent from my ADR6400L using EO Forums

Good try Cheri trying to explain what is actually the problem here. Unfortunately, those that have their minds clouded by watching too much FoxNews and listening to Right-Wing radio and being told day after day about "activist judges", are the problem, you will have are hard time convincing them they are interperting the story and the ruling incorrectly.

Don't beat your head up against a brick wall and let them believe a judge actually would think it's okay to view child porn These are the same individual's who believe allowing same-sex-marriages will open the door to legal man on dog sex or marrying farm animal's.

 

[paullud]

Good try Cheri trying to explain what is actually the problem here. Unfortunately, those that have their minds clouded by watching too much FoxNews and listening to Right-Wing radio and being told day after day about "activist judges", are the problem, you will have are hard time convincing them they are interperting the story and the ruling incorrectly.

Don't beat your head up against a brick wall and let them believe a judge actually would think it's okay to view child porn These are the same individual's who believe allowing same-sex-marriages will open the door to legal man on dog sex or marrying farm animal's.

I don't listen to Fox News or right wing radio and I never said anything close to what you stated about gay marriage. If you had any interest in the truth you could actually try reading what I typed and see that I am not even close to what you described. You have once again proven the adage about what happens when you assume things. I am saying he is an activist because he was looking to find a problem with the law rather than looking at the fact that there is no doubt he possessed child porn. Even if he wants to say that because it was only on the cache he was no longer in possession it is proof he was in possession of child porn. I understand what Cheri is saying but she wasn't looking at the big picture.

Sent from my ADR6400L using EO Forums

 

[witness23]

I am saying he is an activist because he was looking to find a problem with the law rather than looking at the fact that there is no doubt he possessed child porn.

oy vey

I understand what Cheri is saying but she wasn't looking at the big picture.

Because you think there is a larger picture here, you don't understand what she was saying.

 

[paullud]

oy vey



Because you think there is a larger picture here, you don't understand what she was saying.

I understand what she is saying because it is the same thought process the judge used but you are to focused on the lies you make up to actually listen to what others say. I don't know how someone can think that actively seeking out and viewing child porn is not considered to be in possession or promoting it.

Sent from my ADR6400L using EO Forums

 

[witness23]

Excuse me. I am going to step over here and bang my head up against this brickwall.

 

[Turtle]

Excuse me. I am going to step over here and bang my head up against this brickwall.

Excuse me. Let me move over and give you some room. It's a crowded wall.

 

[paullud]

Excuse me. I am going to step over here and bang my head up against this brickwall.

Says the brick wall. Why don't you explain why you think seeking out and having child porn under your control is not considered to be in possession of or promoting child porn? You seem to have no interest here other than insulting people, making up complete lies, and being a brick wall. I'm not sure why it is you think I don't understand the ruling when I am explaining why he was in possession of child porn and the ruling is wrong. Is it your own prejudice or being unwilling to have an adult conversation and look at things from a different perspective.

Sent from my ADR6400L using EO Forums

 

[cheri1122]

Basically the judge says it ok as long as it isn't saved or printed. So he is saying its ok to view which is just sick.

The judge did NOT say [or imply] that viewing child porn is "ok" - he ruled that as the law is written, viewing [passive] is NOT against the law, as [active] possessing, selling, etc are. The judge knows he cannot change the law, and his ruling is a 'heads up' to those who can.

Once the legislators change the law to include viewing, the problem of proving any one person viewed images on a computer can be addressed. Since no one has successfully done that yet, it may be an insoluble problem, unless one were 'caught in the act'.
And Witness has a point: "activist judges" is a right wing hot button - when the rulings don't appeal to them. [Sorry - couldn't resist the pun!]
This is not an activist judge, it's just an attention grabbing headline that caters to those who don't bother to read closely enough to determine the actual facts.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[cheri1122]

Says the brick wall. Why don't you explain why you think seeking out

Why do you say he sought it out? You have no way to back that up, it's just your assumption.

and having child porn under your control

Another assumption: he may not have been the sole person in control of [or with access to] that computer.
is not considered to be in possession of or promoting child porn?
Now you accuse him of promoting it, too? You wouldn't last 10 seconds in the hands of even a second rate attorney.

You seem to have no interest here other than insulting people, making up complete lies,

That's as poorly supported as the rest of your assertions, and uncalled for as well

.and being a brick wall. I'm not sure why it is you think I don't understand the ruling

Um, possibly because you clearly DON'T understand the ruling?!

when I am explaining why he was in possession of child porn and the ruling is wrong.
If the ruling is reversed on appeal, then perhaps it was wrong. Until then, I'm going with the presumption that the judge has a bit more real knowledge than you do.

Is it your own prejudice or being unwilling to have an adult conversation
and look at things from a different perspective.

This is classic projection, right here: it isn't witness who is unwilling to have an adult conversation or look at a different perspective, it's you.

Sent from my ADR6400L using EO Forums

 

[paullud]

Why do you say he sought it out? You have no way to back that up, it's just your assumption.

I say he sought it out because he sought it out and is in no way an assumption. He only had 2 of the 143 convictions of possessing child pornography dismissed and 1 of 2 convictions dismissed of promoting a sexual performance of a child. Now please notice I used the word convictions instead of charges.

Another assumption: he may not have been the sole person in control of [or with access to] that computer.

The evidence was good enough for a jury of his peers.

Now you accuse him of promoting it, too? You wouldn't last 10 seconds in the hands of even a second rate attorney.

No I am not accusing him of promoting it, I am stating a legal fact since he has been convicted of it. Could you explain with your brilliant legal mind, which you must seem to think you have since you are trying to talk down to me, how he was convicted of 2 charges of promoting already and also had THOUSANDS of other child porn images saved on his computer that I am wrong?

That's as poorly supported as the rest of your assertions, and uncalled for as well

It is a statement of what I see him doing, look back and you can see he completely fabricated my views on gays which was the opposite of what I have openly stated. You may think it was uncalled for but it is also true.

Um, possibly because you clearly DON'T understand the ruling?!

Instead of just saying I am wrong why not add something to the conversation and explain how I am wrong. This is my view of the ruling just so it is clear. The judge believes that the law does not state that watching or viewing child porn is specifically made illegal by the words included in the law. I am saying this guy clearly was an active child porn collector since he was saving thousands of other pictures and the photos were stored on the cache because he was actively searching for them. I feel this is enough proof to say we know he was caught searching and possessing child porn. Now what is it about the ruling you say I don't understand.

If the ruling is reversed on appeal, then perhaps it was wrong. Until then, I'm going with the presumption that the judge has a bit more real knowledge than you do.

This isn't only based off of my knowledge. Apparently there was another judge, jurors, and some DA's that are interpreting the law the same way I am.

This is classic projection, right here: it isn't witness who is unwilling to have an adult conversation or look at a different perspective, it's you.

I have clearly stated why I think the judge was wrong and explained a few times like an adult. The only thing you and he have done is say that I don't understand and that I am wrong without once explaining how. There were also the lies and insults from both of you, I guess in your mind that is how an adult talks, I'll start the lies and insults right away.

On a side note if you leave the [/QU OTE] alone in the reply the quotes will show up like everyone else's so it is easier to read. If you want to respond to different sections 1 at a time you just delete the / out of [/QU OTE] then add it to the and put it at the beginning and end the quote with [/QU OTE]. I added the space in quote, normally it isn't there.

Sent from my ADR6400L using EO Forums

 

[BobWolf]

Now, if ist a situation of he turns on his computer and there it is and he realizes its in his computer, makes the effort to remove it or calls his lawer, the cops, the DA trys everything humanly posiable to find out who is responsable for the material he is not a pervert he just got something realy bad on his computer he is innocent and the propaganda machine BKA network news takes it and runs with it and happily destroys him.

On the other hand.
If he is looking for it, opens it, tapes it, views it, saves it, and sends it to his pervert buddies knowing well that its child porn then the title child molesting petiphile fits and he deserves to be punnished maby general population in Attica State Prison with Bubba and Butch both serving triple life without parrole im sure they would be good friends.

There, an open mind.

Bob Wolf