Today’s Interesting News is a study in “wtf” – “Child Pornography Legal To View Online In New York” and attachment parenting, a three-year-old, boobs, and TIME magazine… ummm, wtf!!?
First of all, stop – mother f’ing STOP – saying “child pornography” or “CP” or anything else that conflates porn, pornography, erotica, and/or adult content in any form with filming and/or photographing the sexual abuse of minor-aged persons. TheÂ filming and/or photographing of minor-aged persons in any sort of sexual situation is disturbing (at least to me), highly illegal, and NOT PORN.
Saying “child pornography” is kind of like saying “koala bear.” A koala is a marsupial, not a bear.
Gah!! But enough semantics. Semantics don’t even matter when I read this today…
“It is now not illegal toÂ viewÂ child pornographyÂ on the internet in New York.
The state’s Court Of Appeals ruled Tuesday that simply looking at child pornography online does not constitute criminal possession or procurement of the images.
‘Rather, some affirmative act is required (printing, saving, downloading, etc.) to show that defendant in fact exercised dominion and control over the images that were on his screen,’ wrote Senior Judge Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick in a majority opinion of the six-judge ruling,Â according to MSNBC. ‘To hold otherwise, would extend the reach of (state law) to conduct â€” viewing â€” that our Legislature has not deemed criminal.'”
Ok, so this is like if you’re randomly googling around, happen on something, and go “oh &#^$)@*** close, close, close!!!” …I accept – accidentally looking at something on the interwebs does not make you a god-awful pedophile.
What about “accidentally” googling around (maybe once a week… or once a day… or maybe once an hour), happening on something, going “……………………,” and then clicking close. That’s not the same as the “random” scenario described above.
And what if, rather thanÂ “oh &#^$)@*** close, close, close!!!,” you have the presence of mind to take down the &#^$)@***Â URL for the purpose of reporting it?Â Does that constitute “printing, saving, downloading, etc”? I’m figuring no, but eek…
The story goes on to state bluntly what’s now the case:
“Judge Victoria A. Graffeo simplified things, writing, ‘The purposeful viewing of child pornography on the internet is now legal in New York.’ (View the complete rulingÂ here)”
Holy fucking shit.Â In case you’re wondering:
“[How] did this all come about?
Meet 65-year-old James Kent, a former professor at Marist College whose computer was found to contain
pornographicÂ images illegal images of children in sexually explicit situations in 2007.
[Kent] was convicted of two counts of procuring and 134 counts of possessing a sexual performance by a child. He began his one- to three-year sentence in 2009.Â The Court of Appeals agreed that Kent was properly convicted because he had downloaded, saved and deleted 132 images. But the majority said some images in his computer cache, temporary files automatically stored from sites he viewed, cannot be held against him under state law.”
So, this guy gets convicted because of all the stuff he saved; but, for all the stuff he simply viewed and/or deleted, he gets off? (pun NOT intended)
Eeeeeesh. I hate to say that I can see the logic – accidents happen, and accidents are not the same as intended participation is illegal depictions of minors unisexually explicit situations. But this ruling opens up a disturbing “opportunity” for all sorts of awfulness – like James here not getting in as much trouble as he probably should have.
The story continued on to report that Republican State (NY) Senator Martin Golden and Democrat Assemblyman Joseph Lentol said they will introduce legislation that will make “knowingly accessing”Â sexual depictions of minors illegal. But how does one show “knowingly accessing”? How do you keep the accidents accidental, the “knowing” not ok, and sick fucks like James Kent behind bars? (sorry, judgement… whatevs)
(pictured: totally on purpose image of koalas)
2. And speaking of images, by now you’ve certainly seen this… It’s the May 21, 2012 cover of TIME magazine:
Here are some things that are being said since the internet exploded all over this image today…
A. The image itself – oh my!! It’s so graphic!! And how old is that kid? Seven? And, and… and hey, nice rack.
Is this image effectively provocative, or is it distracting readers from the issue that’s supposedly being discussed (attachment parenting)? Something else?
(incidentally, the kid is three – it says so in tiny print)
B. Are you mom enough? Well, bitches – ARE YOU MOM ENOUGH!!??Â
Honestly? This headline reads more like a beat down challenge than it does a provocative title. And it’s a “challenge” on at least two levels: are you woman enough to handle being a mom, and are mom enough to throw down this level of commitment (attachment parenting)?
Further, I myself wonder…
A. Are you dad enough for this level of commitment? Why isn’t TIME asking that question too?
(oh wait, I know why!! It has to do with that nice rack…)
B. And speaking of nice racks, how much did TIME pay 26-year-old whatsherface (Jamie Lynn Grumet) for this image?Â And why isn’t anyone shouting about the mainstream media’s exploitation of this mother, payout regardless?
I wonder what Octomom would have to say about this?
C. And speaking of what I’m alluding to here (separate and not at all equal standards for mainstream and adult media re Nadya Suleman’s recent self-produced masturbation videoÂ and, say, Jamie Lynn’s titties all over TIME), why isn’t anyone freaking out about both TIME and Jamie Lynn’s sexualization of this minor-aged child? Because supposedly a mother is sexualizing her child by putting it near her breasts in a photograph… or at least that’s what some people said about Madison Young (story about that here).
Maybe it’s because Jamie Lynn (I’m assuming) never gave her body up to porn, and Madison did (and still does, I believe)?
(pictured: Madison Young feeding her kid)
* * *
Interesting News –Â news that’s interesting!!
You may quote anything hereinÂ with the following attribution: â€œReprinted from Porn Valley Vantage/PVVOnline, copyright Â© Chauntelle Anne Tibbals, PhD (www.PVVOnline.com).â€