Court says viewing child porn not same as possessing

[Ray]

Court says viewing child porn not same as possessing

Friday, November 03, 2006
The Associated Press

HARRISBURG -- An appeals court ruled yesterday that viewing child pornography over the Internet may not be enough to merit criminal charges under Pennsylvania law -- it has to be intentionally downloaded or saved.

In a ruling that provides clarification about what constitutes "knowing possession" of child pornography, a three-judge Superior Court panel dismissed 30 counts of sexual abuse of children and a count of criminal use of a communication facility against Anthony Diodoro.

"We note that it is well within the power of the Legislature to criminalize the act of viewing child pornography on a Web site without saving the image," wrote Judge Richard B. Klein.

Mr. Diodoro acknowledged that he had intentionally visited certain Web sites to find child pornography but there was no evidence that he knew that his computer automatically saved 370 images to its hard drive, Judge Klein wrote.

Federal law makes it a crime to "knowingly receive" child pornography, but even that law does not make it a crime to possess it without saving it from the Internet, Judge Klein wrote.

Appellate courts in Washington, Virginia and Wisconsin have upheld convictions in cases in which the viewer intentionally saved child-pornography images.

Delaware County prosecutor Michelle P. Hutton did not immediate return a telephone message.

Mr. Diodoro's lawyer, Mark Phillip Much, praised Judge Klein's ruling and said he was prepared to defend his client if the decision is appealed.

"I'm pleased that the Superior Court distinguished between mere viewing and possession," Mr. Much said.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06307/735382-100.stm

An interesting legal point indeed.

Can viewing be regarded as a crime?

It is a very tricky issue.

I wonder what is your opinion.

I am confused. Morally, it is repulsive. Legally, well.............

[Bill]

Well if just viewing could get ya locked up then a simple pop-up ad of kiddie filth could get your asss tossed in the slam, which is hardly right.

I think the court got it right, definitely.

It's the people that BUY kiddie porn that keep that 'industry' going, not people that may accidentally stumble across some while doing a 'normal' porn search.

[Ray]

That is what I thought would be legally the point.

Thank heavens I have a pop up blocker!

[Edgeplay_cgo]

What about the copies saved in his Temp files? Is that not possession?

I'm very uneasy about criminilizing the possession of intellectual property of any type, although calling child port "intellectual property" is enough to make me gag. I have no sympathy for kiddy porn viewers so their plight doesn't concern me, but it puts innocents at risk. For example, when mass downlaoding from some alt.binaries sites, you can get a fair amount of crap. You tend to download on autopilot and then throw the trash fish over the side. But technically, you're in possession.

I don't like it much.

[Edgeplay_cgo]

It's the people that BUY kiddie porn that keep that 'industry' going, not people that may accidentally stumble across some while doing a 'normal' porn search.

I agree with that, but the way they shovel KP images onto some lists makes it tricky to avoid. A random complaint, say by a POed girlfriend, and a random image lost in a stack of crap, and you're up the creek.

I don't like possession of electronic files laws at all.

[bonehead]

On one hand the sick bastard admitted to be actively searching and looking for child porn.By his own admission,he is a risk to society and should be put behind bars. On the other hand, I don't believe the goverment has any business going through your computer without due process and due to the nature of pop-ups spam ect just visiting a site actively or accidently should not be a reason for big brother to come crashing down your door, seizing your computer and putting your actions on a public record etc.We still have to respect the "innocent untill proven guilty" part of the law and intent is not proven at that point. An acusation however can easily, and forever doom the most law abiding citizen. Law enforcement could come in and arrest most any of us from what is or has been on our computers and even if we are found innocent our friends, families, coworkers will from that point on will treat us differently and with suspicion. Now if they caught the guy red handed while "engaging" with a child then ya, get the search warrant, search the house and the computer too. When the guy is found guilty, hang him by his nutsack(human pinata) and give the victims a tazer and a louieville slugger. Punishment should fit the crime and no amount of today's watered down justice will ever compensate for what happened to the children in question. I really hope there is a God, because if there is, there will most certainly be a special place reserved in hell for those who run the child porn industry.

[THL]

Well if just viewing could get ya locked up then a simple pop-up ad of kiddie filth could get your asss tossed in the slam, which is hardly right.

I think the court got it right, definitely.

It's the people that BUY kiddie porn that keep that 'industry' going, not people that may accidentally stumble across some while doing a 'normal' porn search.

Why, Sniper....We May Agree!!!

I think that if it shows up unrequested, and it was not specific "child porn" that someone was searching for, then it is not their fault it popped up.

What about the copies saved in his Temp files? Is that not possession?

But one does not intentionally save those files, it is done automatically. So if someone is not going out and looking for them and they end up the temp files b-cuz of pop ups, then it is no different from someone planting drugs on another person. The company that put that pop up ad out there is planting child porn on someone else's computer and that company should be held liable.

[Ray]

I await our Forum Leader THL for her comments.

I posted this for her comments since she does make some real incisive ones.

Edit: She posted the one above as I wrote this one and beat me to the draw!

[Bill]

I agree with that, but the way they shovel KP images onto some lists makes it tricky to avoid. A random complaint, say by a POed girlfriend, and a random image lost in a stack of crap, and you're up the creek.

Absolutely true, and we all know how i feel about scorned women who enter into the justice system for the primary(or even sole) purpose of revenge.

[Bill]

I have some problem even busting people that did an intentional search.

I have done intentional searches a few times after seeing news reports of an 'epidemic', solely out of curiosity and to inform myself, and what i discovered was that i couldn't find ANY kiddie porn at all with a regular google/yahoo search.

You can find a chick bangin' a donkey or a horse or a goat or a dog, or a snake, but not kids...or at least, i couldn't.

Some teenaged looking girls that may or may not have been 18, sure- they grow on trees all over the net- but with makeup and a fully developed body, who can even tell if they're really of age anyway?

I recognize there is a problem, but the US (and virtually every state and local) gov't is so PC/zero tolerance moronic that i can hardly trust them to enforce any law that requires even the smallest scintilla of good judgement.

Unfortunately, there are tens and tens of thousands of such laws that the gov't(at all levels) misuses every day.

City gov'ts are the worst of all.

[Ray]

Come on, Sniper.

Don't start publicising the various stuff one gets on the web.

Little children maybe on this forum and you will lead them to the path of sin!

[THL]

I await our Forum Leader THL for her comments.

I posted this for her comments since she does make some real incisive ones.

Edit: She posted the one above as I wrote this one and beat me to the draw!

Why, Ray. I blush



I have a real problem with people looking intentionally for child porn online or anywhere else. But I have received strange and unwanted pop ups myself just by doing normal searches for other stuff. I would hate to think that I could be prosecuted for those pop ups that somehow made it past my pop up blocker.

[Bill]

For once we are all in agreement.

[Ray]

THL,

No actually.

You start very interesting threads out here in the Pub.

It takes the drudgery of the other forum where you have to think and post since chaps are just waiting to pounce on you little hungry vultures.

And your posts here are very candid and forthright.

I love that!

[667medic]

But the guy was making an intensional search for the porn....