My first reaction upon reading the headline "Viewing Child Pornography Online Not a Crime: New York Court Ruling" was one of horror and revulsion. On the issue of civil liberties, I am as pretty far-left as one can probably get, with the exception of enabling cyber-predators to go online and hook up with young kids.
I remember the Dateline NBC series, "To Catch a Predator", in which Chris Hanson and an organization called Perverted Justice would set up what amounted to sting operations against men who would first meet underage children in a chat room, make lewd sexual comments and suggestions, and set up a meet with the kid. The "kid" was actually an adult volunteer from Perverted Justice, and upon talking with the online predator, Hanson would try to delve into his head and figure out why he was attempting to inflict rape on a child. It received a lot of criticism, and perhaps some of it was deserved, but I felt no sympathy for these monsters.
I began to feel similarly on this matter, as I'd read that the judge who made the ruling wrote in a statement that "purposeful viewing of child pornography is now legal in the state of New York". I felt positive that it would generate a firestorm from many, myself included. But I kept reading. The ruling is meant to protect those who merely "view" these images online, rather than those who download and save it to their computer. You may be wondering, "what's the difference", but as a lifelong computer user, I began to understand.
Most people have caching enabled on their computers. A cache is a component within a web browser that automatically stores data and images that are previously accessed, so that when you access them again, they load faster. Accidentally accessing a website with pornographic images is a lot easier than you'd think. All it really takes is looking for a particular website or a file to come across one of these images. Especially if you're looking for something like the latest movie in theaters. Also, mis-clicking on a link, which is also very easy and happens to me all the time. Or opening an email from someone that you don't know and clicking on the link. In addition, what if a hacker is able to gain access to your computer and can direct your browser to a porn site, which would cache these forbidden images?
After delving into the matter a little further, my understanding was very heightened and I now feel that it was a good ruling. Apparently, the law that was on the books prior to the ruling was being used to lock up people for up to 20 years for merely having a child porn pic on their computer, without caching being taken into consideration. Now, a clear pattern of "intent" must be established; someone having a particular folder with pornographic pictures would still be liable for his crimes and would be sentenced, I am sure.
No comments:
Post a Comment