Scumbag activist judges in NY
- Thread starter paullud
- Start date
witness23
Veteran Expediter
Also, you might want to look up a few more sources of the story before you go off calling judges "scumbag activists".
I googled "New York Says Viewing Child Porn Online Is Not Illegal" in the News section and got plenty of results that were more informative and broadened the scope of the case than the link you provided.
Here's one of them......
N.Y. court: Viewing child porn online not always illegal *| ajc.com
This one is under google's "Highly Cited" link.......
U.S. News - Viewing child porn on the Web 'legal' in New York, state appeals court finds
I highly recommend reading those articles as well. Just some friendly advice
I googled "New York Says Viewing Child Porn Online Is Not Illegal" in the News section and got plenty of results that were more informative and broadened the scope of the case than the link you provided.
Here's one of them......
N.Y. court: Viewing child porn online not always illegal *| ajc.com
This one is under google's "Highly Cited" link.......
U.S. News - Viewing child porn on the Web 'legal' in New York, state appeals court finds
I highly recommend reading those articles as well. Just some friendly advice
It is simple.. Just make it a law to state' It is illegal to view, posses, make or distribute child pornography in any way. or in any compromising postion to suggest a provocative way.
But than again breaking the law because my parents took a picture of me on the changing table after a bath? This is something that has to have any senario debated to clarify. Back in my day parents took pics of the kids at varing times thru out childhood.
But than again breaking the law because my parents took a picture of me on the changing table after a bath? This is something that has to have any senario debated to clarify. Back in my day parents took pics of the kids at varing times thru out childhood.
Some of you are in good company, apparently Bill O'reilly doesn't understand the situation either. Big surprise
As Ms. Kelly says,
He was convicted of 132 counts child porn.
Now... I knew you were a hidden Factor junkie. You are just watching it on Youtube.
paullud
Veteran Expediter
Some of you are in good company, apparently Bill O'reilly doesn't understand the situation either. Big surprise
As Ms. Kelly says,
He was convicted of 132 counts child porn.
Still waiting for you to explain how my interpretation is wrong.
Sent from my ADR6400L using EO Forums
witness23
Veteran Expediter
Now... I knew you were a hidden Factor junkie. You are just watching it on Youtube.
It's not a secret that I watch O'reilly, I'm pretty sure I've mentioned it several times in the past. Not a "junkie" by any means, but I will watch him time permitting. I also try and watch Hannity but seriously I can only take his grandstanding, anger, misinformed opinions, talking over guests, pompous arse for about 5 minutes and have to change the channel. When Beck was on I would tune into his show as well. Thank God that imbecile is no longer on television and has been cast off into oblivion. Call me a glutton for punishment but I like to hear what others are saying about current events. To be honest I only consider FoxNews to be an entertainment channel and certainly not an news organization. For the record, either is MSNBC or CNN.
I even caught Shep Smith commenting on the President's "coming out party" if you will, when he said, "President of the United States, now in the 21st century". lol.....
I did watch O'reilly's episode last night and chuckled when I heard O'reilly's comments about it.
I use YouTube for posting video's when they are available because they are easy to cut and paste here in the soapbox.
witness23
Veteran Expediter
paullud
Veteran Expediter
Also, you might want to look up a few more sources of the story before you go off calling judges "scumbag activists".
I googled "New York Says Viewing Child Porn Online Is Not Illegal" in the News section and got plenty of results that were more informative and broadened the scope of the case than the link you provided.
Here's one of them......
N.Y. court: Viewing child porn online not always illegal *| ajc.com
This one is under google's "Highly Cited" link.......
U.S. News - Viewing child porn on the Web 'legal' in New York, state appeals court finds
I highly recommend reading those articles as well. Just some friendly advice
This is from the second article:
"Rather, some 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."
In other words, "the purposeful viewing of child pornography on the internet is now legal in New York," Judge Victoria A. Graffeo wrote in one of two concurring opinions that agreed with the result but not with the majority's reasoning.
If you are purposefully viewing child porn which would mean he was actively seeking it out, it would be an affirmative act and show he had control of those images while on the screen. The judges are saying it is the law not keeping up with technology but it seems they are the ones that aren't keeping up. They are saying that simply viewing child porn is not a crime which I would agree with if you were searching out adult porn and ended up on the wrong site or just found pictures somewhere. This is a guy that was intentionally searching for and viewing child porn so it was not an accident that these images were on his computer.
Apparently one judge doesn't think child porn is all that bad.
Judge Robert Smith wrote separately that under Graffeo's reading, someone who does no more than click on a link to look at a pornographic picture for free — someone who has never interacted with a child victim or copied, downloaded or saved a picture or put one penny in a pornographer's pocket, could face up to seven years in prison for a first offense.
"This is surely a stringent punishment for someone whom many would think more pathetic than evil,"
Sent from my ADR6400L using EO Forums
Every once in a while there is some news in there but most I would think are more entertainment driven. Its a ratings driven business.
paullud
Veteran Expediter
That has nothing to do with my interpretation of the law or understanding of the ruling. That is my opinion that they are trying to legislate from the bench and act like they are cutting edge or a step ahead.
Sent from my ADR6400L using EO Forums
No one can deny that some judges try to do just that. This ruling is not such a case. In fact the opposite is true if they had found him guilty they would be legislating from the bench. Regardless how disgusting a persons actions are if the law wasnt written to cover such action they cant be found guilty. If it was a federal charge he could be found guilty because it is worded to make viewing such things illegal.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using EO Forums
paullud
Veteran Expediter
I understand that viewing child porn is not specifically spelled out by the letter of the NY state law but, my view is that he was in control of the computer and therefore in control of the images on the screen. He was using the computer to display the images that he sought out and selected so he had control of the images at 1 point in time. Then seeking out child porn which was proven beyond reasonable doubt already, meets the qualification for the affirmative action that the judges say didn't exist.
Sent from my ADR6400L using EO Forums
The lady he was interviewing did make one good point and unfortunately when the laws were written30 - 35 years ago those of us who remember to own a computer you had to slap down 500-1,000 bucks. In todays money that would probly be five to ten grand and, we didnt have the internet, face book, the ability to post videos and again the availability to technology to the average person. The laws are written as if the Child porn is on film and photo.
If you have owned computers long enough say at least back to the mid/late 1990s you all had somthing poured onto our computer be it a virus, somthing annoying like a marketing add that flooded your screen with popups, and yeah offesive material wether it simply pised you off or Totaly disgusted you.
I hope a real politician in New York realizes this and pushes to update the child protection law However if it is accidental like clicking a topic like child car seats that is not clearly child porn then it pops up when it opens up a website say car seats are us and he dose the right thing not guilty.
If he spends time looking arround endoying the site like he did then he should go to prison. The answer he was doing research just dosent fly.This dude deserves every minite jail time he gets infact should never get out, In New York and most states a teacher at any level, healthcare provider at any level, if you work with children or disabled people you are required to report abuse.
I am registered as an indipendant and call myself one because I like to think and make decisions for myselfI usualy can only tolorate the right wing pimps Lepracon, and limbaugh and hanity in small doses and it dosent matter what network you watch its all the same propaganda just a different channel and its served to the sheeple wether by television, radio, internet, news paper, and old fasion word of mouth.
And thats all i have to say abbout that....
Bob Wolf
If you have owned computers long enough say at least back to the mid/late 1990s you all had somthing poured onto our computer be it a virus, somthing annoying like a marketing add that flooded your screen with popups, and yeah offesive material wether it simply pised you off or Totaly disgusted you.
I hope a real politician in New York realizes this and pushes to update the child protection law However if it is accidental like clicking a topic like child car seats that is not clearly child porn then it pops up when it opens up a website say car seats are us and he dose the right thing not guilty.
If he spends time looking arround endoying the site like he did then he should go to prison. The answer he was doing research just dosent fly.This dude deserves every minite jail time he gets infact should never get out, In New York and most states a teacher at any level, healthcare provider at any level, if you work with children or disabled people you are required to report abuse.
I am registered as an indipendant and call myself one because I like to think and make decisions for myselfI usualy can only tolorate the right wing pimps Lepracon, and limbaugh and hanity in small doses and it dosent matter what network you watch its all the same propaganda just a different channel and its served to the sheeple wether by television, radio, internet, news paper, and old fasion word of mouth.
And thats all i have to say abbout that....
Bob Wolf
Tennesseahawk
Veteran Expediter
So, in other words, if someone sends you spam with child porn on it, and you look at it, BAM!... guilty as charged. Um... the government can get away with too much there.
NO, Im saying if somone looks for child porn or opens a spam e mail or its hidden on a website and says hell yeah and tours the site, and especialy passed it on yes he is guilty. Obviously there has to be a provision that says an accidental opening and you immediately close it and you report it you are not guilty. B.T.W., no matter what website you open they know how long you are on that site after all this is the information age your movements and every key stroke is monitered and the internet is far from private.
Tennesseahawk
Veteran Expediter
Kinda like the black boxes, huh?
paullud
Veteran Expediter
So now I don't understand what activist means. Do you just tell people they don't understand things to belittle them or do you just not have any other way to try and say you are right? I clearly understand what activist means and have actually demonstrated that before when I went over the explanation of why I say he was guilty and why I think the judges dismissed some charges. A law against viewing child porn wouldn't impact real researchers at all because they are cleared by the authorities to do the research. The "I was doing research" excuse is a common one and was even used by Pete Townshend.
Edit: It was Pete Townshend not Frampton.
Sent from my ADR6400L using EO Forums
Last edited:
Does anyone here own a copy of Penthouse, September 1984? GET RID OF IT!!
While 99% of the people who bought that issue did so for the infamous Vanessa Williams pictures( Vanessa L. Williams - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ), possession of that magazine is illegal because the Penthouse Pet ( Traci Lords - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) for that month was revealed two years later to have been underage when the centerfold spread was shot.
Does it matter that Lords herself falsified her ID to enter the porn trade? No.
Does it matter that Lords is now 44 years old? No.
Should it? THAT is an interesting topic to discuss.
While 99% of the people who bought that issue did so for the infamous Vanessa Williams pictures( Vanessa L. Williams - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ), possession of that magazine is illegal because the Penthouse Pet ( Traci Lords - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) for that month was revealed two years later to have been underage when the centerfold spread was shot.
Does it matter that Lords herself falsified her ID to enter the porn trade? No.
Does it matter that Lords is now 44 years old? No.
Should it? THAT is an interesting topic to discuss.