Two appellate courts recently ruled that an individual who intentionally visited Web sites to view child pornography, but who did not intentionally save those images to his computer's hard drive, could not be convicted or punished for possessing images that were automatically saved in the browser's cache. Litigator Howard J. Bashman explains why he considers those rulings to be badly mistaken.
December 04, 2006 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.Com
Related: Bashman Archive
Two appellate courts recently ruled that an individual who intentionally visited Web sites to view child pornography, but who did not intentionally save those images to his computer’s hard drive, could not be convicted or punished for possessing images that were automatically saved due to the Web browser’s cache functions. These rulings strike me as badly mistaken, for reasons that I shall explain further below.
Presented by BigVoodoo
The premier educational and networking event for employee benefits brokers and agents.
The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
Consulting Magazine recognizes leaders in technology across three categories Leadership, Client Service and Innovation.
Atlanta s John Marshall Law School is seeking to hire one or more full-time, visiting Legal WritingInstructors to teach Legal Research, Anal...
Shipman is seeking an associate to join our Labor & Employment practice in our Hartford, New Haven, or Stamford office. Candidates shou...
Evergreen Trading is a media investment firm headquartered in NYC. We help brands achieve their goals by leveraging their unwanted assets to...
MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS
