@firefly,
Quote:The difference being that in the Penn St case there is an identifiable victim, in this case there is not
firefly wrote:According to the last news story I read, they are trying to see whether they can identify any of the children in Smith's case, and to determine whether any were from the area where he lives.
Whether the victims can be identified or not does not mean that Smith wasn't committing a crime that should have been reported.
I think Linkat's point is that the other passenger on the plane did not act apathetically when he saw a crime involving the abuse of children taking place--he acted, unlike what happened at Penn State. Other people on that plane might have realized what Smith was doing, but might have chosen to ignore it, or figure it was none of their business. I think the action this passenger took was remarkable and very commendable.
It was directly in violation of the federal statute. So far as I remember,
that statute does not concern itself with the
motives
of any person who produces the prohibited images
(except medical personnel qua medical texts).
He may be allowed to get away with it,
but the fact remains that he
DID violate the federal law
by
LOOKING at the pictures, by re-producing them
and if he sent copies thereof to his son, then for so doing.
I have not read the Mass. law, so I dunno what is in it.
Its fun to discuss the philosophy of law. I enjoyed that
a lot when I was in law school. That is one of the reasons
that constitutional law was my favorite course.
I usually argue
anti-government positions.
Quote:Calling out Smith does not save a single victim.
firefly wrote:You just can't connect with the fact that those children are exploited, and their privacy invaded, each time their images are viewed--the abuse does not stop with the creation of the image.
This is a relatively new and unusual species
of emotion-based legislation in America; I 'd say that it was
unique,
except for the existence of
"hate crime" legislation
(which is deeply offensive to traditional basic Americanism).
Crime is fungible, regardless of the emotions of the perpetrators.
If the photography shows rapes or sodomies,
then (the same as if it showed murders or robberies)
that evidence shoud be used to find and punish the criminals,
but when I looked at pictures of the results of the Valentine's Day
Massacre, I don't believe that I exploited the victims.
( For the sake of
argument, imagine that there had been survivors.)
If I get a camera and go photograph a celebrity in Manhattan,
or just a beautiful girl walking down the street,
is that an act of
immoral exploitation?
Maybe morally I owe money to the celebrity or to the girl ?
I have mentioned that when I was in the hospital in 2005
a weirdo took a picture of me, from behind,
when I was wearing a hospital gown in my room, open in back.
I became aware of it from seeing a great flash of white light from behind me.
( I have seen what it looks like back there, in a hotel mirror,
and I can assure u that it is an ugly sight; gross.)
Am I exploited by that picture? I don't feel anything.
How about if the same thing had happened when I was 10 or 15 years old?
firefly wrote:Calling out Smith stops him from destributing any more of his images, and stops him from abusing and exploiting other children by the act of viewing their images. He is part of the chain that started with the production of the image--it was created for people like him.
And we don't know what else Smith might have done.
I have always supported capital punishment,
but not the notion of killing him because
we don 't know what else he might have done.
Ignorance of the facts is not a good cause for vengeance.
David
