RECENTLY ON TOL:
- A tumblr site dedicated to the people and places that make up Oregon and Southwest Washington.
Chip Grabow's comments:
It is confusing. The question the court asked in this case is "Can a computer user be found to have knowingly "possess[ed] or control[led]" digital images of child sexual abuse, within the meaning of ORS 163.686(1)(a)(A)(i), based solely on evidence showing that, at some time in the past, he intentionally accessed those digital images using his computer's Internet browser and -- by reasonable inference -- looked at them?" The court obviously answered no to that question. The court focused on the words "possess" and "control" and ruled that merely viewing images online doesn't equate to possession. All very complex but here's the whole opinion if you'd like to read more: http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/S058345.htm#FNT1
posted 2 years, 4 months ago
view in context