# Victims of child porn should be able to sue the people that are caught with it **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 28, 2010, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/victims-of-child-porn-should-be-able-to-sue-the-people-that-are-caught-with-it/530751 "2010-02-28T16:32:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2010, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/victims-of-child-porn-should-be-able-to-sue-the-people-that-are-caught-with-it/530751/41 "2010-03-01T01:34:25Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > So imagine another child porn victim who had the same experience as Amy 10 years ago, but her images were only distributed on paper, and were successfully all gathered up in a raid 9 years ago, so no copies escaped. Does it seem reasonable that 10 years later Amy gets millions of dollars and this other poor victim, who seems to have suffered just as much in most ways that matter, gets nothing? I really don’t follow your logic here. Since someone else’s abuse wasn’t as distributed as Amy’s we should deny Amy recovery? > [@Max](#): > > It also seems weird to have a situation in which there’s a strong financial incentive for the victim to further “victimize” herself. Obviously I can’t really envision what it’s like, but if it was years in the past and I’ve already suffered the initial horror, and it occurs to me that I can upload this video as many places as I can find, get a huge financial payoff each time, but of course doing so arguably victimizes future victims who suffer from the increased demand… well, that seems like a potentially problematic situation for the law to create. Again, I don’t follow the logic. You seem to be bent on finding bizarre scenarios to justify denying the recovery. Why the hell would a victim of child pornography break the law and upload pictures of their own rape? So they can recover restitution which would then be taken away from them because they’ll be in jail for distributing child pornography? ---
**Author:** ![robertliguori](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@robertliguori](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robertliguori)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2010, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/victims-of-child-porn-should-be-able-to-sue-the-people-that-are-caught-with-it/530751/42 "2010-03-01T01:46:39Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > In addition to the invasion of privacy, viewer of child porn are also providing a financial incentive for creating and distributing it. I would argue that they are essentially paying other people to rape childen and photograph it for them. That makes them both civilly and criminally liable. So, are people who distribute child porn for free undercutting the cost incentive? How much molestation-for-pay would be prevented by dumping all existing archived child porn onto the internet in easily-downloadable form? Yes, it would be a violation of current privacy laws, but if we’re down with prosecuting people over the financial incentive, why not remove it entirely? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2010, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/victims-of-child-porn-should-be-able-to-sue-the-people-that-are-caught-with-it/530751/43 "2010-03-01T01:52:18Z")
> [@robertliguori](#): > > So, are people who distribute child porn for free undercutting the cost incentive? How much molestation-for-pay would be prevented by dumping all existing archived child porn onto the internet in easily-downloadable form? > > Yes, it would be a violation of current privacy laws, but if we’re down with prosecuting people over the financial incentive, why not remove it entirely? You answered your own question. Because it’s an invasion of privacy. ---
**Author:** ![Thin\_Ice](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/aeb1de/32.png) [@Thin\_Ice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thin_Ice)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2010, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/victims-of-child-porn-should-be-able-to-sue-the-people-that-are-caught-with-it/530751/44 "2010-03-01T02:42:51Z")
This thread just begs for a pay per view joke, but I won’t be the one to post it. ---
**Author:** ![robertliguori](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@robertliguori](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robertliguori)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2010, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/victims-of-child-porn-should-be-able-to-sue-the-people-that-are-caught-with-it/530751/45 "2010-03-01T03:22:11Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > You answered your own question. Because it’s an invasion of privacy. Fair enough. So, what are your thoughts on instead dumping large quantities of simulated (either with actors, or computer graphics) child pornography on the market, for the same reason? Less facetiously, I would posit that a bare minority of the cases of child molestation have a financial motive. I am open to cites explaining the existence of a thriving kiddie-porn market of which I am unaware, of course. Also, I don’t see much of an argument in the up-mentioned link. Is there existing precedent that filmed sexual assault causes additional actionable harm on viewing that nonviolent assault doesn’t? Could someone who was attacked and a recording of the attack broadcasted make similar claims? ---
**Author:** ![Lakai](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9de0a6/32.png) [@Lakai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lakai)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2010, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/victims-of-child-porn-should-be-able-to-sue-the-people-that-are-caught-with-it/530751/46 "2010-03-01T03:31:15Z")
The threshold question in this issue should be whether the viewers of child porn caused any harm to the child in the video. Whether this would prevent more child abuse shouldn’t be the issue in a tort suit. It’s clear that the person distributing the video is an offender. He is creating all sorts of new psychological problems by making the abuse public. These problems are distinct from the problems created by the original abuser. What new problems are the people who watch the video creating for the child? I think that people who watch child porn do knowing damage to the child on their video, even if they do not distribute the video. If they pay for the video then they are doing damage to the child in the video by increasing the demand for that same video. This increases incentive for the distributor to keep distributing the same video. Essentially increasing the psychological damage to the child on the video that would not have existed if no one bought the video from someone trying to distribute it. If they don’t pay for it, then they aren’t increasing demand. A tort suit for damages would have to be justified on other grounds. The damage done would be slightly comparable to spying on someone undressing. Although spying on someone being sexually abused is much worse. I can’t really think of any other situation that would produce comparable damages. ---
**Author:** ![Lakai](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9de0a6/32.png) [@Lakai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lakai)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2010, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/victims-of-child-porn-should-be-able-to-sue-the-people-that-are-caught-with-it/530751/47 "2010-03-01T03:36:07Z")
> [@robertliguori](#): > > Could someone who was attacked and a recording of the attack broadcasted make similar claims? The shame and embarrassment of people seeing you physically assaulted doesn’t do as much harm as the shame and embarrassment of people seeing you naked, having sex, or being sexually abused. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2010, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/victims-of-child-porn-should-be-able-to-sue-the-people-that-are-caught-with-it/530751/48 "2010-03-01T03:53:34Z")
> [@robertliguori](#): > > Fair enough. > > So, what are your thoughts on instead dumping large quantities of simulated (either with actors, or computer graphics) child pornography on the market, for the same reason? If it doesn’t involve a real victim, there’s no crime, so who cares what anybody wants to do with it? > [@](#): > > Less facetiously, I would posit that a bare minority of the cases of child molestation have a financial motive. I am open to cites explaining the existence of a thriving kiddie-porn market of which I am unaware, of course. You’re asking the wrong person. I have no idea how much money is made or not made from child pornography. I don’t know what the inentive would be in distributing it for free, though. > [@](#): > > Also, I don’t see much of an argument in the up-mentioned link. Is there existing precedent that filmed sexual assault causes additional actionable harm on viewing that nonviolent assault doesn’t? Could someone who was attacked and a recording of the attack broadcasted make similar claims? If they were naked and they were children they probably could. ---
**Author:** ![robertliguori](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@robertliguori](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robertliguori)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2010, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/victims-of-child-porn-should-be-able-to-sue-the-people-that-are-caught-with-it/530751/49 "2010-03-01T04:31:25Z")
> [@Lakai](#): > > The shame and embarrassment of people seeing you physically assaulted doesn’t do as much harm as the shame and embarrassment of people seeing you naked, having sex, or being sexually abused. Again, I am curious if this is enshrined in law or precedent anywhere. I don’t deny that it’s almost always true, but if you do get a guy who does feel that he is suffering comparable pain and suffering from the result of a simple assault video as a sexual assault video, does he have a claim? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2010, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/victims-of-child-porn-should-be-able-to-sue-the-people-that-are-caught-with-it/530751/50 "2010-03-01T04:37:42Z")
That’s for a jury to decide. He has a right to make the case. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2010, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/victims-of-child-porn-should-be-able-to-sue-the-people-that-are-caught-with-it/530751/51 "2010-03-01T04:48:08Z")
I really don’t see why it doesn’t work like everything else. It’s the distributor, not the viewer, who gets in trouble. I also really don’t like defending anything based on a right to privacy. I’d much rather see people punished not for invading privacy, but for what they do with the new information they have. That said, I’m pretty sure most child porn viewers either fileshare or exist in some sort of ring. They are going to be “distributing” those photos. And now to wash my brain out with bleach for even having to think about this. Bleh. ---
**Author:** ![Zebra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/c0e974/32.png) [@Zebra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zebra)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2010, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/victims-of-child-porn-should-be-able-to-sue-the-people-that-are-caught-with-it/530751/52 "2010-03-01T05:00:20Z")
From the linked article > [@](#): > > A second reason to punish possession of child pornography is the invasion of privacy that watching someone being molested represents. As Amy describes it, the knowledge that people are watching her being sexually assaulted feels like an additional assault to her. Well maybe if we didn’t tell her about it being found she would stop feeling the additional assault. I know that a new law notifies her, but I think this law is a bad idea. It basically rubs her nose it, years after the fact. I contend that the law that notifies her and other victims is a bad idea. That is the law that needs changing. ---
**Author:** ![boytyperanma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4491bb/32.png) [@boytyperanma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boytyperanma)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2010, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/victims-of-child-porn-should-be-able-to-sue-the-people-that-are-caught-with-it/530751/53 "2010-03-01T05:03:00Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > So imagine another child porn victim who had the same experience as Amy 10 years ago, but her images were only distributed on paper, and were successfully all gathered up in a raid 9 years ago, so no copies escaped. Does it seem reasonable that 10 years later Amy gets millions of dollars and this other poor victim, who seems to have suffered just as much in most ways that matter, gets nothing? One counter is Amy is further victimized as her image of abuse has been distributed further and thus she has more right to restitution. Going back to Amy’s story per NPR they are arguing victims of child pornography have a right to **total compensation** of 3.5 million dollars. The method they are using is to sue each convict that possessed her image until that amount has been acquired. If the current case where they are awarded 3.8 million dollars pays out that would be the end of it. The convicts that actually pay her the 3.5 million could fairly go after others who possessed the images to spread the ‘cost’ to all the convicts involved. The result of that being convicts are less at risk financially if they distribute an image further because that creates a larger pool for that 3.5m to come from. I’m kind of OK with that though because such activity increases the likely-hood they are caught. ---
**Author:** ![boytyperanma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4491bb/32.png) [@boytyperanma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boytyperanma)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2010, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/victims-of-child-porn-should-be-able-to-sue-the-people-that-are-caught-with-it/530751/54 "2010-03-01T05:10:56Z")
> [@Zebra](#): > > Well maybe if we didn’t tell her about it being found she would stop feeling the additional assault. I know that a new law notifies her, but I think this law is a bad idea. It basically rubs her nose it, years after the fact. > > I contend that the law that notifies her and other victims is a bad idea. That is the law that needs changing. Here is the law in question: [http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/vr/cvra/index.html](http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/vr/cvra/index.html) I think claiming such a law is a bad idea is ridiculous. Any victim can assign such notifications to their attorney. They can also choose not to be notified. They need never see notifications. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2010, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/victims-of-child-porn-should-be-able-to-sue-the-people-that-are-caught-with-it/530751/55 "2010-03-01T05:18:15Z")
> [@Zebra](#): > > From the linked article > > Well maybe if we didn’t tell her about it being found she would stop feeling the additional assault. I know that a new law notifies her, but I think this law is a bad idea. It basically rubs her nose it, years after the fact. > > I contend that the law that notifies her and other victims is a bad idea. That is the law that needs changing. By this reasoning, peeping in windows or putting camcorders in bathrooms isn’t a crime as long as the victims don’t know about it, and they don’t have a right to be notified about it either. ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2010, 6:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/victims-of-child-porn-should-be-able-to-sue-the-people-that-are-caught-with-it/530751/56 "2010-03-01T06:32:46Z")
1. $3.5 million sounds like an awful lot of money to me 2. Hmm…creating a financial incentive for one criminal to rat another out - not sure how that works? Is it legal, could pedo A, sued for $3.5 million really turn around and sue pedo B for $1.75 million if he shared the file? But this could do wonders for catching pedos… ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2010, 6:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/victims-of-child-porn-should-be-able-to-sue-the-people-that-are-caught-with-it/530751/57 "2010-03-01T06:42:37Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > By this reasoning, peeping in windows or putting camcorders in bathrooms isn’t a crime as long as the victims don’t know about it, and they don’t have a right to be notified about it either. It is most definitely a crime. But the _actual_ harm can only come from the victim knowing about it. Edit: Saw that the notification is voluntary. The victim is deliberately choosing to cause herself to suffer. ---
**Author:** ![Nicest\_of\_the\_Damned](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/8baadc/32.png) [@Nicest\_of\_the\_Damned](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nicest_of_the_Damned)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2010, 7:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/victims-of-child-porn-should-be-able-to-sue-the-people-that-are-caught-with-it/530751/58 "2010-03-01T07:12:52Z")
She knows they are being viewed whether she gets notified or not. According to that NPR piece, these pictures are some of the most widely distributed of their kind. Her lawyer said that she looks similar enough now that she can still be recognized from the pictures. I can see how that would be disturbing. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2010, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/victims-of-child-porn-should-be-able-to-sue-the-people-that-are-caught-with-it/530751/59 "2010-03-01T13:12:05Z")
> [@Zebra](#): > > I contend that the law that notifies her and other victims is a bad idea. That is the law that needs changing. I contend that it should be up to the victim to decide if they want to request to be notified, rather than have that decided for them. > [@Blaron](#): > > The victim is deliberately choosing to cause herself to suffer. I’m wondering why you seem to think you are in the best position to decide how a victim of child molestation should act, and that if a victim chooses to be notified, they are “causing themselves to suffer?” Do you have some studies or personal experience that would put your opinion about the effect of child molestation on victims above that of the actual victims. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2010, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/victims-of-child-porn-should-be-able-to-sue-the-people-that-are-caught-with-it/530751/60 "2010-03-01T13:22:37Z")
> [@boytyperanma](#): > > Going back to Amy’s story per NPR they are arguing victims of child pornography have a right to **total compensation** of 3.5 million dollars. The method they are using is to sue each convict that possessed her image until that amount has been acquired. If the current case where they are awarded 3.8 million dollars pays out that would be the end of it. The convicts that actually pay her the 3.5 million could fairly go after others who possessed the images to spread the ‘cost’ to all the convicts involved. > > The result of that being convicts are less at risk financially if they distribute an image further because that creates a larger pool for that 3.5m to come from. I’m kind of OK with that though because such activity increases the likely-hood they are caught. From the [Seattle Times](http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2011012555_apuschildpornpayingvictims.html): > [@](#): > > Hundreds of requests have been filed nationwide, most of them by Amy’s attorney, James Marsh of New York. Marsh said that as recently as five years ago, restitution would have been impossible because victims wouldn’t have known when someone was caught with an image of them. The Crime Victims Rights Act of 2004 set up a system for notifying the victims. Now, Marsh gets several notices a day on behalf of Amy. > > Marsh, who declined to make Amy available for an interview, is seeking restitution for Amy in 350 cases nationwide. Each request is about $3.4 million. It’s not clear to me that there’s a cap on total damages. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/victims-of-child-porn-should-be-able-to-sue-the-people-that-are-caught-with-it/530751.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/victims-of-child-porn-should-be-able-to-sue-the-people-that-are-caught-with-it/530751.md?page=4)