HuffPost Social Reading

Child Pornography Legal To View Online In New York; Court Rules Looking At Porn Doesn't Mean Possession

Posted: 05/10/2012 9:45 am Updated: 05/10/2012 9:45 am

Child Pornography Ruling New York

It is now not illegal to view child pornography on the internet in New York.

The state's Court Of Appeals ruled Tuesday that simply looking at child pornography online does not constitute criminal possession or procurement of the images.

"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," wrote Senior Judge Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick in a majority opinion of the six-judge ruling, according to MSNBC. "To hold otherwise, would extend the reach of (state law) to conduct — viewing — that our Legislature has not deemed criminal."

Judge Victoria A. Graffeo simplified things, writing, "The purposeful viewing of child pornography on the internet is now legal in New York."

[View the complete ruling here.]

And how did this all come about? Meet 65-year-old James Kent, a former professor at Marist College whose computer was found to contain pornographic images in 2007. From The New York Daily News:

[Kent] was convicted of two counts of procuring and 134 counts of possessing a sexual performance by a child. He began his one- to three-year sentence in 2009.

The Court of Appeals agreed that Kent was properly convicted because he had downloaded, saved and deleted 132 images. But the majority said some images in his computer cache, temporary files automatically stored from sites he viewed, cannot be held against him under state law.

The ruling absolved the professor of two of the counts against him, Reuters reports. As for the rest of the counts, Kent is still guilty. According to emails documented in the ruling, Kent may have been collecting the images for a potential research project into child pornography regulation.

Kent claimed, according to MSNBC, that he "abhorred" child pornography, and that someone else must have put the images on his computer.

According to the ruling, one subfolder found on Kent's computer, "contained approximately 13,000 saved images of female children, whom Investigator Friedman estimated to be 8 or 9 years old, dressed in lingerie or bathing suits and many with their legs spread open."

On Wednesday, Republican State Senator Martin Golden and Democrat Assemblyman Joseph Lentol said they will introduce legislation that will make illegal "knowingly accessing" child pornography.

Contribute to this Story:
FOLLOW NEW YORK

It is now not illegal to view child pornography on the internet in New York. The state's Court Of Appeals ruled Tuesday that simply looking at child pornography online does not constitute criminal...
It is now not illegal to view child pornography on the internet in New York. The state's Court Of Appeals ruled Tuesday that simply looking at child pornography online does not constitute criminal...
Filed by Christopher Mathias  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 1,191
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (30 total)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
hedonistnutritionist
27 minutes ago (12:21 PM)
In this country a 17 1/2 year old is a child and an 18 year old is an adult. So it would be entirely OK for a horny old man to slobber all over a porn site featuring an 18 year old but not a 17 1/2 year old. I feel we have let our children down. We should be protecting our young people, entering into adulthood and teaching them the way to become adult members of society and we should NOT be exploiting them. Though society seems to feel differently, I don't think someone magically turns into an adult on their 18th birthday.
5 hours ago ( 8:14 AM)
Viewing child pornography is legal in New York. However, they do not want you to download said pornography? This is the typical liberal interpretation of the law. As long as you do not control the video then you are innocent.

And people wonder why we dismiss anything that has to do with New York or Los Angeles on an ethical level. These two cities lead the way in sexual predators and child abuse and their liberal courts are finding more and more ways to facilitate them!
5 hours ago ( 7:31 AM)
I am -assuming- that if someone was looking up how to attack and terrorize the country, or how to create home-made bombs or such, but not necessarily -owning- the information or saving it onto their computers, the Government would still be watching them very, very, very closely and carefully for a chance to leap on them and their cronies. Yes, there is a huge, huge difference between researching attacking the country or creating bombs and viewing child pornography, but why should viewing but not owning online child pornography be treated any differently...? Because it is still endangering people...children...and terrorizing people...children.
6 hours ago ( 7:11 AM)
So let me get this straight... He deletes 132 child porn images that he had saved to his computer, but he intentionally saves 13,000 images in its own special file folder on his computer, filled with 8-9 year old girls wearing lingerie with their legs spread open, and his sentense was ONLY 1-3 years, which he began serving in 2009 so he is out now to help make these special New York laws so that what he did was okay and in the future he and people like him wouldn't have to go to prison for it. Oh brother!!!
4 hours ago ( 8:26 AM)
Uhhh....yeah.
7 hours ago ( 6:13 AM)
There is something seriously wrong with this city!!!
7 hours ago ( 5:51 AM)
What silly nonsense! Has the courts gone completely MAD?
7 hours ago ( 5:50 AM)
SICK!SICK!SICK! OUR COUNTRY IS GOING THE WAY OF THE PREDATOR. TIME TO LOCK THE CHILDREN AWAY!? AT LEAST UNTIL WE CAN ERADICATE AND OR TERMINATE THE ONES PREYING ON OUR CHILDREN!!!!!!!!!!(GOD HELP US ALL) PLEASE...
8 hours ago ( 4:30 AM)
Just Great...now pedophile sites will go on the rise..and pedophiles will view this as the incentive to abuse more children so they can have fresh media for their counterparts to view...
Pedophilia should be made a capitol crime
and we should start making sure our Official have better morals before we put them in Office
andI dont want to hear the Stupid agrument about people having the Right to Express themselves...that Article of the constitution is being maligned and overabused
there's needs to be a limit and some control... Free Speech is Great..but not when that right is being twisted and used to furter filth and degradation
since it seems we are losing them as a nation
8 hours ago ( 5:06 AM)
Your's is the kind of reaction that worries me, "...Free Speech is Great...but..." But what? There hasn't been any twisting of free speech. A loop hole was found in the law. The judges, very likely a moral group of people, are required to rule as the law is written. A Senator and an assemblyman are addressing the issue. The freak is in jail. Instead of a negative story, the head line ought to read, "Loophole Discovered! Hero Politicians Are About to Pull it Closed!" You can't sell papers running success stories.
7 hours ago ( 6:16 AM)
They rule on the basis as "THEY" interpret the way the law was written.. Not on how the law was written!!!!!
9 hours ago ( 3:47 AM)
children who actually make it out of the womb and still have no rights. surely children subjected to this dont agree with or enjoy this behavior where are the rights of the children
9 hours ago ( 3:28 AM)
The court of appeals of new york state has lost there minds they must have it on there computers to make a ruleing like that what a sick court....
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
huff-puff-bluff
9 hours ago ( 3:19 AM)
So many things are WRONG with this decsion. 1)That means there can be no actions take nlegally against th eweb sites putting up child pornography if they only let you WACTH and NOT download 2)This sends NO message to the person viewing it that this is morally reprehensible 3)Will encourage the production of MORE of this kind of material since just VIEWING it is "not illegal". SO sites will charge a VIEW fee and essentially be showing Child pornography. Sounds like a very dubious decision.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
7 hours ago ( 5:37 AM)
think it through. in order to put the filth up on the web the sites would have to own or possess it and therefore would be guilty. (probably guilty on many other counts as well) essentially what the legislature is going to do is pass legislation to take care of points 2 and 3. what the court is refusing to do here is hold someone responsible for content on your computer that the operating system placed there automatically as per its programming.
10 hours ago ( 3:06 AM)
Seriously? I love my state but sometimes we need a good kick in the head, these judges would be singing a different tune if their grandkids were the ones in the photography.
10 hours ago ( 2:39 AM)
I think people should step back and see the bigger picture. The issue isn't permitting people to view the images in the first instance, rather, how those images were uploaded to the internet. With the internet, images are uploaded from parts of the world where governments don't enforce the same way we'd like. If child porn is to be addressed, it will be accountable for our peoples actions only. A further and perhaps more controversial step would be to censor the internet.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
huff-puff-bluff
9 hours ago ( 3:23 AM)
Catching the people who photograph, tape and upload this material is VERY difficult outside of the USA due to lack of HELP from Eastern Europe and the AQrab World. I have read OST of the smut comes from Poor Eastern Europe countriews( ukraine, Moldova, Slovenia, Latvia, Russia) or Poor regions of Asia (Laos, Thailand, Phillipines) and the governments in BOTH regions do not put the manpower or WILL into aprehensio nand prosecution because those tourists who fly over of those involved in the illgal ex traffic indiustry give pAY OFFS to these politicians and low level police.....the ECONOMY of the world dictates their behavoir (poorer countries are easily corrupted). Sad fact. I knew a girl OVER 18 in Latvia--and she was SOLD into Slavery...I couldnt save her..i tried...i was told I would be in terrible danger if aI attemtped to alert anyone.
10 hours ago ( 2:18 AM)
In theory, I agree with the court's ruling. But, in real life, I can't imagine anyone who would want to look at that not having some very, serious and dangerous issues.
9 hours ago ( 4:06 AM)
I agree with you, Florence. There is no reason a person who is not a pedophile would spend any time at all looking at child pornography. An adult who was not a pedophile, if so inclined, would spend the time looking at adult porn. That adult would have no reason under the sun to sit at a computer and look at little children in vulnerable positions and in the nude. I think it's time the courts in this country wake up to what they're promoting by being so lenient when it comes to anything dealing with harm to children. This ruling has set a dangerous precedent. What next - it won't be illegal to kidnap a child after looking at child porn? Heaven help our children, because the courts certainly won't.
9 hours ago ( 4:10 AM)
Florence, I agreed with you in a post, which posted for a brief moment, and then disappeared!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
idontcare761
It seems I might care afterall..
11 hours ago ( 2:14 AM)
I can understand what they are saying and why they are saying it, but, it's hard to agree with it. Had ALL the images on his hard drive , in his cache , been downloaded or printed out then he would have been held liable for ALL the images.