Evil? Now, perhaps. Later? Not so much.

[Diogenes]

Now you see no significance in this ruling. It is simply another incremental step in this direction. People will make the argument that if it is okay to look at this stuff, then it is okay to record it to be viewed later, and eventually all prohibitions against it will fall to these quasi-legal arguments with the eventual result that some court will rule it protected "free speech" or some nonsense.

By your logic, you wish to have everyone that accidentally views a page of child porn, in addition to those that are looking for such images, be guilty of a federal crime. To me that makes you look like a complete idiot, since it is pretty trivial to get a large portion of the population "in trouble" this way just by some malicious google-ad graphics.

Its quite clear from the portions williatw quoted that the ruling means "we don't have (enough) evidence" not "this is perfectly legal".

Yes...and again is there any other example where merely looking at something is a crime? Not producing, distributing, attempting to buy or sell, or possession. Just "he looked at it" is the crime.

"The purposeful viewing of child pornography on the internet is now legal in New York," Senior Judge Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick wrote in a majority decision for the court.

Did *I* miss the salient point, or did you guys miss the salient point?

I think the terms "accidental" and "Purposeful" are mutually exclusive.

[Diogenes]

I often have problems communicating because I am often unaware of other peoples lack of knowledge. It occurred to me that this may be what is occurring now.


In Legal parlance there are two terms which people ought to be familiar. "Dicta" and "Holding."


"Dicta" more or less means comments or remarks. It is statements made as a "non binding" opinion, and is merely indicative of the thought process used to arrive at their decision.

You guys are quoting "Dicta".



A "Holding" is the decision of the court in accordance with the relevant established legal principles.

The "Holding" of the court is that the "purposeful viewing" is legal.

As Judge Graffeo explains:

GRAFFEO, J. (concurring in result only):

The majority holds that it is legal in New York to knowingly access and view child pornography on the internet. I do not support this view and write separately to explain what I believe is the reasonable application of the relevant Penal Law provisions and the important public policies underlying their enactment.

[williatw]

I often have problems communicating because I am often unaware of other peoples lack of knowledge. It occurred to me that this may be what is occurring now.


In Legal parlance there are two terms which people ought to be familiar. "Dicta" and "Holding."


"Dicta" more or less means comments or remarks. It is statements made as a "non binding" opinion, and is merely indicative of the thought process used to arrive at their decision.

You guys are quoting "Dicta".



A "Holding" is the decision of the court in accordance with the relevant established legal principles.

The "Holding" of the court is that the "purposeful viewing" is legal.

As Judge Graffeo explains:

GRAFFEO, J. (concurring in result only):

The majority holds that it is legal in New York to knowingly access and view child pornography on the internet. I do not support this view and write separately to explain what I believe is the reasonable application of the relevant Penal Law provisions and the important public policies underlying their enactment.

Sorry Diogenes but I am still stuck on the idea that "looking at it" is the crime. Or perhaps I should clarify that you obviously think it should be. The court begged to differ, saying the existing statute does not specify merely looking at it is a crime. He didn't buy, sell, produce, distribute, or possess the contraband material...he merely "willfully" looked at it. So if a buxom 15yr old girl sends/posts pics of herself topless/nude (15 is underage so "kiddie porn") on the internet at a website or facebook or whatever, any person who willfully looks at it as far as you are concerned is a ticking time bomb of a raging pedophile who should be tried convicted and locked up for the good of society.

[KitemanSA]

Sounded to me like the judges basically said "the law as written doesn't hold up and is void. Until the legislature make new law that DOES hold up, viewing will be held legal. I.e., it is legal until made illegal in a constitutional manner. Get busy legislature".

[Diogenes]

I often have problems communicating because I am often unaware of other peoples lack of knowledge. It occurred to me that this may be what is occurring now.


In Legal parlance there are two terms which people ought to be familiar. "Dicta" and "Holding."


"Dicta" more or less means comments or remarks. It is statements made as a "non binding" opinion, and is merely indicative of the thought process used to arrive at their decision.

You guys are quoting "Dicta".



A "Holding" is the decision of the court in accordance with the relevant established legal principles.

The "Holding" of the court is that the "purposeful viewing" is legal.

As Judge Graffeo explains:

GRAFFEO, J. (concurring in result only):

The majority holds that it is legal in New York to knowingly access and view child pornography on the internet. I do not support this view and write separately to explain what I believe is the reasonable application of the relevant Penal Law provisions and the important public policies underlying their enactment.

Sorry Diogenes but I am still stuck on the idea that "looking at it" is the crime. Or perhaps I should clarify that you obviously think it should be.

What I think is that up till now, it was understood to mean that. The action of the court did not produce a null result. It produced an incremental change in the manner in which the law has been understood and how it will be enforced in the future.

The court begged to differ, saying the existing statute does not specify merely looking at it is a crime. He didn't buy, sell, produce, distribute, or possess the contraband material...he merely "willfully" looked at it.

It is another case in which a Court sacrifices the spirit of the law to the letter of the law. The court basically said that because the statute covering this offense did not specifically and explicitly say that looking at it was a crime (which had long been the understanding of legal authorities for decades) then they would not hold that it was a crime.

So if a buxom 15yr old girl sends/posts pics of herself topless/nude (15 is underage so "kiddie porn") on the internet at a website or facebook or whatever, any person who willfully looks at it as far as you are concerned is a ticking time bomb of a raging pedophile who should be tried convicted and locked up for the good of society.

Why must people push the narrative that their opponent is advocating something extreme? You are trying to put words in my mouth, and I am not going to let you do it. You have intentionally cherry picked your hypothetical to create the most innocently plausible circumstance of which you can conceive, and then you have insinuated that I would be in favor of an obvious overreaction to your relatively innocuous hypothetical.

This is intellectually dishonest, and if you don't know it, you ought to.

As far as I know, it *HAS* been illegal for young underaged girls to post or send nude photographs of themselves to other people. I have read several articles where District Attorneys were discussing this relatively recent problem because the law clearly forbids it, but the DAs recognize that this sort of thing wasn't what the law was really created to deter.


To my knowledge, this sort of thing has been previously handled off the radar by the discretion of the District Attorneys who's job it is to prosecute such crimes. They have sensibly refrained from prosecuting such cases and generally just warn these kids to stop doing it.


Anyway, your entire response is missing the point, and I don't think it will be possible for me to get you to really ponder the salient point. I think that you will have to learn what i'm talking about by going the long way around, the same as many others before you.

There are reasons why history repeats itself.

[Diogenes]

Sounded to me like the judges basically said "the law as written doesn't hold up and is void. Until the legislature make new law that DOES hold up, viewing will be held legal. I.e., it is legal until made illegal in a constitutional manner. Get busy legislature".

You are oversimplifying it. It is a ruling based on a technicality not unlike what the meaning of the word "is" is. (As in I did not have "sex" with that woman.)

If the legislature does nothing, it will result in a defacto legalization of Child Pr0n in New York. Defendants in other states will cite the New York case as precedent, and the Judges in other states may very well go along with this legal theory.

If you don't think this case will have a real world impact, I am not the least bit surprised. Libertarians tend to believe that all sorts of behavior has no damaging real world impacts because their perception of the time stream is too short sighted.

They think they know better than History.

[KitemanSA]

If you don't think this case will have a real world impact, I am not the least bit surprised. Libertarians tend to believe that all sorts of behavior has no damaging real world impacts because their perception of the time stream is too short sighted.

They think they know better than History.

This is an odd statement. I've talked to many Libertarians and have found that generally they have a broader view of history than either conservatives or liberals.

[Diogenes]

And now to turn you Irony knob up to 11...


Abortion Giant Planned Parenthood Hosts Mother’s Day Fundraiser

Planned Parenthood of the Southern Finger Lakes will hold its second annual Mother’s Day celebration at Moosewood and will feature two seatings, 10:30 a.m. to noon and noon to 1:30 p.m. May 13 at the restaurant, 215 N. Cayuga St. in the DeWitt Mall.

http://liveactionnews.org/opinion/abort ... undraiser/

[Diogenes]

If you don't think this case will have a real world impact, I am not the least bit surprised. Libertarians tend to believe that all sorts of behavior has no damaging real world impacts because their perception of the time stream is too short sighted.

They think they know better than History.

This is an odd statement. I've talked to many Libertarians and have found that generally they have a broader view of history than either conservatives or liberals.

Only in an abstract "isn't that neat" sort of way. They may be able to tell you how many tank divisions did this or that in WWII, but when it comes to learning the Social/Culture LESSONS from History, they simply aren't even aware of their existence.

As I have mentioned time and time again, "morality" was a list of things which people had learned through experience, would prevent death and misery, so they made them into a set of rules. They attached these rules to Religion because it was the simplest way to get people to take the rules seriously and obey them.


You Libertarians refuse to learn the lesson of drugs in China, the lessons of promiscuity in the Georgian age of England, the lessons of the AIDS epidemic of the 1980s and the lessons of the French Revolution. You refuse to see the connection between Burkean culture theory and Smith Economic theory, and as a result you have an incomplete picture of how things work and why.


Abstract knowledge of History doesn't help you recognize dangers which may be coming. Today we have the most Hitler like leader we've ever had, and not nearly enough people are even aware of it.

[hanelyp]

I've observed that behaviors traditional western morality identifies as sinful have a strong correlation with behaviors that get people hurt. The sin tag doesn't seem to discriminate so much between behaviors that harm others vs. behaviors that directly harm only willing participants. But on closer look, many "victimless" crimes have secondary impacts that spread beyond the actor.

[Diogenes]

I've observed that behaviors traditional western morality identifies as sinful have a strong correlation with behaviors that get people hurt. The sin tag doesn't seem to discriminate so much between behaviors that harm others vs. behaviors that directly harm only willing participants. But on closer look, many "victimless" crimes have secondary impacts that spread beyond the actor.

Exactly my point, and likewise a consistent observational failing on the part of Libertarians. They never seem to be aware that there are often victims for their "victimless" crimes.

[krenshala]

D, I keep seeing you apparently use the terms/names Libertarian and Libertine interchangeably. Its as if you feel they are two names for the same group. If that is your believe then I think at least one of those two terms doesn't mean what you think it means.

[KitemanSA]

Sounded to me like the judges basically said "the law as written doesn't hold up and is void. Until the legislature make new law that DOES hold up, viewing will be held legal. I.e., it is legal until made illegal in a constitutional manner. Get busy legislature".

You are oversimplifying it. It is a ruling based on a technicality not unlike what the meaning of the word "is" is. (As in I did not have "sex" with that woman.)

Now who is "over-simplifying?
The judges said the law was unacceptably written. That is their job. The legislature better get on the ball and fix the law. I suspect there will be a request to maintain some portions of the law (or estop such actions) until the legislature gets it done.
But maybe not. NY, what can you say?

[KitemanSA]

If you don't think this case will have a real world impact, I am not the least bit surprised. Libertarians tend to believe that all sorts of behavior has no damaging real world impacts because their perception of the time stream is too short sighted.

They think they know better than History.

This is an odd statement. I've talked to many Libertarians and have found that generally they have a broader view of history than either conservatives or liberals.

Only in an abstract "isn't that neat" sort of way. They may be able to tell you how many tank divisions did this or that in WWII, but when it comes to learning the Social/Culture LESSONS from History, they simply aren't even aware of their existence.

Again, an odd (or unknowledgable) statement. Seems what you are REALLY saying is that since they don't learn the lesson you think is correct from history, they must not know there ARE lessons.

Nutsoid, that.

[KitemanSA]

I've observed that behaviors traditional western morality identifies as sinful have a strong correlation with behaviors that get people hurt. The sin tag doesn't seem to discriminate so much between behaviors that harm others vs. behaviors that directly harm only willing participants. But on closer look, many "victimless" crimes have secondary impacts that spread beyond the actor.

Then charge them with creating the secondary impacts.

What D is saying is akin to "since it is a statistical certainty that young black males cause most deadly crime in the US, all young black males should be arrested".

This of course is absurd, and it is as absurd as saying that because someone may do something you feel is a 'secondary impact" the primary activity should be prohibited. Arrest the young black murderers. Arrest the ... whatever the secondary impact activity would be, if it is illegal (or wrong).

(By the way, your first statement also is the reason why such systems seem to fall apart. Mistaking "ethics" (good vs bad) with morality (right vs wrong) results in a lot of "good intentioned" immorality, which is the proverbial road to hell)