Scumbag activist judges in NY

[cheri1122]

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.

Half a dozen responses have said you are wrong, and every one of them got the same reply: a confusing 'explanation' as to why the judge was wrong, but not a word about why you labeled him an activist. I'm done explaining the same thing over and over, because you keep 'explaining' something besides the meaning of 'activist'. [Which in rightwing speak, is automatically coupled with 'scumbag', just like liberal is with 'moron']

.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 Peter Frampton.

I'll save the question of which authorities for someone who appears to be capable of interpreting the meaning of words and the law as they actually are, rather than as they're portrayed by some sources of ideology.

Sent from my ADR6400L using EO Forums

 

[paullud]

Half a dozen responses have said you are wrong, and every one of them got the same reply: a confusing 'explanation' as to why the judge was wrong, but not a word about why you labeled him an activist. I'm done explaining the same thing over and over, because you keep 'explaining' something besides the meaning of 'activist'. [Which in rightwing speak, is automatically coupled with 'scumbag', just like liberal is with 'moron']

Half a dozen? You might want to try counting instead of just guessing or assuming as you seem to do. You not understanding a perfectly valid legal argument doesn't mean it is confusing, it might just mean you don't understand or probably just never bothered trying to read and understand it. This is my answer about why I labeled them as activists, you can read it here or when I posted it several responses ago when I replied to Witness. "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." My point is that the judges were acting as legal activists and tried to find a way to agree with the loophole instead of looking at the evidence before them and seeing if he would still be guilty. The "confusing" explanation seems like it would be a valid argument by a DA to me which means he would still be guilty of those crimes.

I'll save the question of which authorities for someone who appears to be capable of interpreting the meaning of words and the law as they actually are, rather than as they're portrayed by some sources of ideology.

Fine by me, but according to Federal law the only people that can possess child porn legally is LEO's. It is interesting you never consider the idea that you are the one with comprehension issues, especially given the number of times you just post things that you have no idea about. Instead of trying to always blame someone else maybe you could try something different and ask for a more detailed explanation or just tell the other person you aren't sure what they are trying to say or why they are saying it that way. It is much nicer than telling them they don't know what they are talking about, implying they are dumb, or talking down to them.

Sent from my ADR6400L using EO Forums

 

[Turtle]

You made your points clear enough. Unfortunately, making them clear doesn't make them right.

Saying that because he was in control of his computer, so therefore he was both aware and in control of his browser cache, and every single file within the cache, is a stretch. That would be quite a legal loophole, and one an activist judge might make to skirt the law as written.

You'd also have to include Website cookies in that. Are you aware of and in control of every cookie on your machine?

Saying that because he sought and and was viewing images on his screen, he was therefor in control of the images on his screen is also a stretch, since those images were being streamed from a computer server of which he was not in control. He was no more in control of those images on his screen than you are in control of the images being broadcast from the television studio to your television. But even if he was in control of the images on his screen, he made no action to save those images to a file. No screencap, no save-as, no nothing. He was purely a passive viewer, which doesn't violate the law. His browser saved some files, tho, but he didn't, and he made no effort to copy those files from the cache to another place on his computer.

Most people don't know what the cache is, where it is, or how to access it. Fact is, it's the browser who has dominion control over the cache, not the computer user, unless the computer user takes some affirmative action to take control of the cache, which he did not. You see it differently, and that's fine, but the law disagrees, as the judge ruled. It's not like he's getting off scott-free or anything. He was merely found not guilty of two charges out of a whole bunch of them, accompanied by a recommendation from the judge to the legislators to re-word the law.

 

[paullud]

You made your points clear enough. Unfortunately, making them clear doesn't make them right.

I thought I made it clear enough but kept being told I wasn't so I just wanted to make sure it wasn't how I was explaining it.

Saying that because he was in control of his computer, so therefore he was both aware and in control of his browser cache, and every single file within the cache, is a stretch. That would be quite a legal loophole, and one an activist judge might make to skirt the law as written.

You'd also have to include Website cookies in that. Are you aware of and in control of every cookie on your machine?

Saying that because he sought and and was viewing images on his screen, he was therefor in control of the images on his screen is also a stretch, since those images were being streamed from a computer server of which he was not in control. He was no more in control of those images on his screen than you are in control of the images being broadcast from the television studio to your television. But even if he was in control of the images on his screen, he made no action to save those images to a file. No screencap, no save-as, no nothing. He was purely a passive viewer, which doesn't violate the law. His browser saved some files, tho, but he didn't, and he made no effort to copy those files from the cache to another place on his computer.

Most people don't know what the cache is, where it is, or how to access it. Fact is, it's the browser who has dominion control over the cache, not the computer user, unless the computer user takes some affirmative action to take control of the cache, which he did not. You see it differently, and that's fine, but the law disagrees, as the judge ruled. It's not like he's getting off scott-free or anything. He was merely found not guilty of two charges out of a whole bunch of them, accompanied by a recommendation from the judge to the legislators to re-word the law.

Unfortunately with the way our legal system is set up there seems to be a way to find a loophole in many situations. I just happen to have a legal opinion that would find him guilty and the judge has one that would dismiss the charges. Neither is 100% correct as they are opinions and are based on how one interprets the law as written.

Sent from my ADR6400L using EO Forums