MSNBC reports, "The decision rests on whether accessing and viewing something on the Internet is the same as possessing it, and whether possessing it means you had to procure it. In essence, the court said no to the first question and yes to the second."
This all started back in 2007 when college professor James D. Kent was charged and convicted with possession of child pornography, and sentenced to three years in prison in 2009. He appealed to the supreme court and they dismissed one count of promoting a sexual performance of a child, and just one of the many counts of possession of child pornography, all other counts were upheld. Prior to his prison term he was an assistant professor of public administration at Marist College in Poughkeepsie, NY.
Basically the Judges ruled that other people may have had access to his work computer and therefore he did not procure the pictures nor have possession of them, but I find that very troubling.
It's not clear to me what the court has said. In any event this does set a presedent for future cases involving child pornography in New York State. It's not clear if the prosecution will appeal this ruling further.
One good thing, Kents activities, are still considered a Federal crime.
Daniel ... Toronto, Canada
My take on everything