Viewing Child Porn on the Internet Is Now Legal in New York..WTFFFF
- Thread starter faceblogger
- Start date
That's ridiculous, If it can be proved that the "accident" happend consistently...than it should be proven that its no accident.
Technically, all the files were temp saved automatically, right? This is why old fucks have no business ruling on technology cases.
Worth discussing rather than making snap judgements here. The question is whether what is present in the browser cache represents knowing and willing possession.
If your mother gets dickrolled, does that mean she is now possession of gay porn?
The point is, you don't know precisely what is on a website until you actually view it.
So a browser cache on your computer cannot be the sole basis on which to charge you with a crime.
Now keep in mind this fuckface is still charged with like four score and seven other charges that should still hold up in court.
This is a logical argument if he had stumbled on to 1 page and quickly exited once he saw what was there, but:
Is it safe to assume that these pics were on multiple pages and he continued to browse, even after he realized what he had found?
Now if you dabble in child porn stop and get some help you fuckin' sicko. That caveat aside...
I don't think they could charge him for viewing websites. I've never heard of something being charged with a crime for viewing a website.
All the charges I've ever seen and heard of or read about are about possession and disseminating(?), not viewing.
I doubt this guy had ONE kid porn website cached. If there is a pattern, its not an accident, period.
I used to own a website that got a load of cp posted on the forums once, probably a couple of hundred images. I couldn't help but look at it, they were my forums. Obviously, I reported the user to the police, but does the fact I saw the images make me a pedophile?
I don't think it is safe to make that assumption, especially in a legal case where 'reasonable doubt' needs to be met. I'm sure there are TGP sites which have hundreds of images hosted on them.
Plus is getting dickrolled (or in this case theoretically getting CP-rolled) 40 times anymore of a crime than getting dickrolled once?
Is it very likely that he is guilty? Yes. Can it be proved beyond a reasonable doubt if the files were only in his browser cache? I don't think so.
I agree with this ruling because it protects the innocent from nefarious people who are looking to cause trouble.
It's too easy for some unsuspecting person to get spammed by someone with this kind of stuff, view the file while not knowing what it is, deleting it when they do find out what it is, but still having it in their cache and getting busted for it at a later date.
It's too easy for some unsuspecting person to get spammed by someone with this kind of stuff, view the file while not knowing what it is, deleting it when they do find out what it is, but still having it in their cache and getting busted for it at a later date.