2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

Much is made of "accidental viewing". Accidental viewing is understandable if the link's title is innocuous or non-specific. The test for those convicted but claiming accidental viewing (one of the cited cases involving a teacher I think claims this) should be the answer to this question...If the site clearly stated that 'accessing this site is a violation of federal and state law'... would they have proceeded?. If "Yes", it is certainly not accidental viewing. But without such a warning, sites with links like "ShockingVideo" is a door to the unknown. If this title turned out to be illegal porn, it could be a genuine argument of accidental viewing for which there should be some legal relief in the law.

posted 2 years, 4 months ago
view in context

If people "find"? Well...finding means by inferrence viewing. If viewing is illegal they have already broken the law. If they are confounded by how they got there, or where they actually are, back-up and retry, they now have viewed twice and have two counts of illegal viewing. What if the "viewer" had no reason to believe that the link was any different than the other links to the predominance of "legal" porn, you have a curtain, and what is behind the curtain you have no idea is illegal. Once the curtain opens you have offended! If that site is a sting or law enformement honeypot of some sort, you are in deeper trouble.

So you report....well, if you report to the URL you are no less "off the hook". If you report to enforcement, you have an admission on a police report of your illegal viewing and a confession.

Sites posting such immages must be taken down and their producers and sponsors procecuted. Taking down our fellow citizens as they access what they believed their right to a free press is not.

posted 2 years, 4 months ago
view in context