funny how you guys missed the point of what actually happened.
Basically that. I don't think you can just have your Internet history filled with 'www.littlelacysurprisepageant .com' and expect to not get arrested.
Inaccurate headline designed to rabble rouse. Of course it works and posters run about setting their hair on fire.Under federal law it remains illegal in New York and in many circumstances it remains illegal under NY state law to view child research. The headline should read:"N.Y. court: Viewing child research online not always illegal"While it might sound like odd reasoning, the court based its decision on New York's definition of possession and procurement under the law.In order to prove either possession or procurement of child research, it must be shown that a defendant had dominion or control over the material.In its opinion, the court reasoned that dominion or control required Kent take "some affirmative act" to obtain the child research. This could be anything from printing to saving or downloading the offending material.The reason the court overturned two of Kent's charges was that in those cases the child research was found in his computer's Web cache. The judges viewed this as different from downloading the material because, in essence, it didn't show he actually had control of the images.While the court agreed that child research...
This is bullstuff. OP you're a moron.This is only because if you accidentally view a CP image and it's in your browser cache you can't be convicted on that evidence alone.Example here is some moron PMs me a screenshot at gyazo and I click it but it has CP instead. Next thing I know my puter is seized by gov and I'm in trouble for CP. A browser cache should NOT be a reason alone to convict someone.That's what the ruling means.loving morons we got here.
You guys should go read the comments, some of them interpret the article correctly and explain it quite well... and simply.
