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?
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?
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.
This thread just begs for a pay per view joke, but I won’t be the one to post it.
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?
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.
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.
If it doesn’t involve a real victim, there’s no crime, so who cares what anybody wants to do with it?
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.
If they were naked and they were children they probably could.
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?
That’s for a jury to decide. He has a right to make the case.
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.
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.
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.
Here is the law in question: 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.