17
   

Man's life Over, Cops Decide He Watched Child Porn in First Class

 
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Wed 15 Feb, 2012 09:36 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
Some feel the penalties are too harsh, others feel they must be harsh. These two articles reflect the various positions on both the state and the federal level.


Of course we should add to the prison population that is already the largest ratio of population behind bars of almost any other nation in the world for having illegal computer files.

Building more prisons instead of highways, colleges, hospitals, fire stations is the way we should go.

After all we never used reason when emotions will do in the US.

Oh, as most child porn is downloaded for free by way of p2p networks the idea that there is a large commercial motivation in the production of CP is amusing.

Hell the legal porn business with copyright protection is beginning to have severe financial problems due to P2P networks but then logic and facts are never an issue.

http://news.techeye.net/security/porn-industry-goes-on-the-attack

THE porn industry is fighting against P2P file sharers in a mass lawsuit campaign.

In two weeks one lawyer with an AOL e-mail address, working out of a Martinsburg, West Virginia office, has managed to file more than 16,700 new lawsuits against P2P file-sharers.

According to Ars Technica, Kenneth Ford is at the forefront of an increasingly litigious porn industry.

He set up the Adult Copyright Company and filed several lawsuits during the summer for films like Juicy White Anal Booty 4.

■Get more powerful, intelligent, efficient server architecture solution
Ads by TechClicksBut in recent weeks he really has been working flat out. Last month he sued 7,098 anonymous online P2P users for sharing the film Batman XXX: A Porn Parody. He pulled 7,098 IP addresses as proof of ID. Once he has that he sends out a threatening letter demanding money.

If they don't pay up then Ford his them with a message with lots of capital letters.

"THE MORE EFFORT WE EXPEND, INCLUDING NAMING YOU INDIVIDUALLY IN A LAWSUIT, THE MORE WE MUST RECOVER TO MAKE OUR CLIENT WHOLE."

If it does go to trail then infringers are going to be charged $150,000 for each file.

Last week he initiated a similar campaign against 9,729 people who were sharing a flick called Teen Anal Nightmare 2.

One lawyer taking on 17,000 people in under two weeks is more than the RIAA managed in five years.

The US Copyright Group, which helped to develop the for-profit P2P litigation model in the US has only sued around 16,000 people so far.

Recently, the porn industry announced its plan to "significantly reduce digital piracy of adult content and to effectively drive those who engage in adult content piracy completely underground by January 2012.

It is not clear how much cash he collects. Certainly no one has gone to trial yet to prove its success. The "business model" is similar to one being tried by ACS LAW in the UK which is surrounded in controversy.

However, if this is the strategy being employed by the porn industry it could be the most vicious attack on file sharing pirates ever. Of course it relies on them not to band together and issue any counter attack. Unfortunately for them legal defences against piracy have not been very effective once a case gets to court.






BillRM
 
  1  
Wed 15 Feb, 2012 09:59 pm
@firefly,
Second US harsh punishments to date is not working in reducing the ease of getting such materials on the net for those who care to do so.

There seems no differences in the amount of CP being traded by US citizens then for the citizens of other countries with more sane laws on the subject.

But once more we go by emotions not reasons in the US.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Wed 15 Feb, 2012 10:54 pm
@BillRM,
Since the issue is currently being discussed in public hearings by the U.S. Sentencing Commission, have you bothered to contact your Members of Congress to tell them how you feel, or do you just engage in meaningless postings here?

Congress is currently supporting the harsher penalties, so it is there you should direct your protest.
Quote:
Second US harsh punishments to date is not working in reducing the ease of getting such materials on the net for those who care to do so.

The punishments for possession of child pornography have little or nothing to do with trying to reduce the ease of obtaining the materials.

State bills, like this current one in Kentucky, are aimed at issues connected with the obtaining of child porn
Quote:
Kentucky House committee passes child porn law
Feb. 15, 2012

FRANKFORT, KY. — The House Judiciary Committee passed a bill Wednesday that would punish people who skirt child pornography laws by accessing images or video through overseas computer systems.

Kentucky law already prohibits the possession and distribution of child pornography, but House Bill 126 would also make viewing the images a Class D felony with a possible sentence of up to five years in prison.
Anyone convicted of the crime would have to register as a sex offender.

Supporters said the changes are needed to catch up with technological advances, which allow access to illegal material that remains stored on computer servers in other countries, outside the jurisdiction of U.S. subpoenas.
“These types of off-site servers have proliferated throughout Europe and Asia,” said Morgain Sprague, counsel for Kentucky State Police.

Sprague said Internet users can view the images without ever downloading or “possessing” the material on their personal computer. That has raised legal questions and conflicting court rulings in other states.

The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Kevin Sinnette, D-Ashland, said nine other states have passed similar measures and Kentucky needs to stay ahead of the curve as criminals become more tech savvy.
“The Internet has just leaped forward,” he said. “We are making a statement that our children are paramount, and we have to look out for their interest.”
Sinnette said HB 126 is also aimed at people who view child pornography in groups.

Before voting, committee members amended the measure with language to protect anyone who unintentionally stumbles upon illicit images. The amendment says viewing the material has to be “deliberate, purposeful and voluntary.”
Rep. Stan Lee, R-Lexington, predicted that defendants will seize on the exception in court.
But Sprague said most prosecutions are based on a pattern of conduct, in which offenders scour the Internet with specific search terms or repeatedly enter illegal websites with log-ins and pass codes.

Deputy Public Advocate Damon Preston said he has not had a chance to review the amendment granting exceptions, but he cited concerns about expanding the child pornography laws in a way that could sweep up innocent people.
“The general thought would be most child pornography cases are going to be covered under current law,” he said.

According to the Eastern District of the U.S. Attorneys Office, federal law already prohibits accessing child pornography “with intent to view” and proscribes a maximum sentence of 10 years.

But investigations often involve multiple law enforcement agencies and fall to different jurisdictions based on the details of the case.
Sinnette said comments from a local police officer in his district sparked his concern over the gap in state law.
“Federal law has addressed the issue, but like anything else, they’ve got their hands full,” he said. “It’s kind of like the drug trade. You can be charged federally … as well as locally.”

HB 126 now heads to the full House, where Sinnette expects the bill to pass.
http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20120215/NEWS0101/302150101/Kentucky-child-porn?odyssey=nav%7Chead
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Wed 15 Feb, 2012 11:16 pm
As is the case with teachers, coaches, and others who work with children, finding child pornography in the possession of a pediatric resident physician is disturbing. Also troubling is the fact that 8 people knew of the crime and didn't report it. And this isn't the first time this physician has been charged with a child pornography offense--he was previously charged in a state case that is still ongoing..
Quote:
Federal child porn charges filed against former U-M resident physician Stephen Jenson
Feb 15, 2012

Federal child pornography charges have been filed against a former resident physician at University of Michigan Hospital who authorities said left a thumb drive containing child porn in the Pediatric Emergency Department.

Stephen Jenson, 36, of Pittsfield Township, was charged Tuesday in a federal criminal complaint with receipt of child pornography and possession of child pornography.

Records show University of Michigan officials waited 6 months to report it to police after child porn was found last May in a locked lounge residents use at the hospital.

Jenson worked at the hospital until late December. He was previously charged by Washtenaw County prosecutors with four counts of possessing child sexually abusive material and is scheduled to return to court in that case Thursday for a preliminary hearing.

To date, investigators have recovered 97 images and four videos of suspected child porn on Jenson's electronic storage devices, according to an affidavit by U.S. Secret Service Special Agent Kevin Nowakowski. The alleged illegal conduct occurred between January 2011 and Dec. 2, 2011, records say.

The delayed report to police prompted the university to conduct an internal review. At least eight people knew about the alleged crime by June 2, records show, but no one reported it to police until November. A physician who knew about the child porn came forward, in part, because of the Penn State University football child sex abuse scandal.

The university didn't fire anyone after the internal review, but said Friday that corrective action is being taken.

The U.S. Department of Education continues to look into the matter.

If convicted in the federal case of possessing child pornography, Jenson faces a minimum of five years in prison.
http://www.annarbor.com/news/crime/federal-child-porn-charges-filed-against-former-u-m-resident-physician-stephen-jenson/
firefly
 
  2  
Wed 15 Feb, 2012 11:29 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
Oh, as most child porn is downloaded for free by way of p2p networks the idea that there is a large commercial motivation in the production of CP is amusing

No one is saying that the primary motivation is commercial.

The feds are after the file sharing networks as well.

And, in the process, they find those possessing child pornography....
Quote:
Lafayette man sentenced in child porn case
Feb. 15, 2012

A Lafayette man was sentenced to more than six years in federal prison after he pleaded guilty to having hundreds of images and videos of child pornography on his computer.

United States Attorney Stephanie A. Finley announced that Kermit Escudier, III, 53, of Lafayette, La., was sentenced to serve six and a half years in federal prison for possession of child pornography. The sentence was handed down on Monday by District Judge Richard T. Haik in federal court in Lafayette.

In addition to the prison term, the judge also sentenced Escudier to five years supervised release.

Escudier pleaded guilty in September to possession of child pornography.

Documents filed with the court prior to the sentencing revealed that during an undercover investigation of Limewire, law enforcement discovered child pornography on the defendant’s computer which was located at his residence.

Limewire is an internet peer to peer site used to trade files among members that is regularly used to distribute child pornography. Over 100 images of prepubescent child pornography and over 100 videos of hardcore, prepubescent child pornography was found on Escudier’s computer.

United States Attorney Stephanie A. Finley stated, “Possessing child pornography is a crime with serious consequences," Finley said. "The U.S. Attorney’s Office will continue to vigorously prosecute these types of cases. Those who engage in this type of activity should be clear that federal, state and local law enforcement are committed to do as much as we can to protect children.”
http://www.theadvertiser.com/article/20120215/NEWS01/120215026

0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Wed 15 Feb, 2012 11:33 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
As is the case with teachers, coaches, and others who work with children, finding child pornography in the possession of a pediatric resident physician is disturbing


You think that anyone possessing child porn is disturbing, so this sentence is typical Firefly dishonesty used to promote an argument.
firefly
 
  2  
Thu 16 Feb, 2012 12:30 am
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
You think that anyone possessing child porn is disturbing, so this sentence is typical Firefly dishonesty used to promote an argument.

What argument am I promoting?

I think that it is wrong to possess child pornography, but I find the possession disturbing when it is done by someone who works with children, particularly in a position of trust with children.

Whenever you accuse me of dishonesty, it's because you have no meaningful intellectual comment on the issues--which is most of the time.Laughing



hawkeye10
 
  2  
Thu 16 Feb, 2012 01:18 am
@firefly,
Quote:
I think that it is wrong to possess child pornography, but I find the possession disturbing when it is done by someone who works with children, particularly in a position of trust with children.
Since it is not possible that you would ever find possession of child porn not disturbing this is a meaningless statement paraded as a statement with meaning...IE a Firefly lie.
firefly
 
  2  
Thu 16 Feb, 2012 01:30 am
Another man who works with children, particularly in a position of trust with children...
Quote:
The New York Times
February 7, 2012
Aide Accused of Taping Sexual Acts With Students
By MOSI SECRET and NOAH ROSENBERG

A teacher’s aide at a public school in Brooklyn who was charged last month with possessing and distributing child pornography was arrested again on Monday night after federal agents discovered that some of the videos showed him engaging in sexual acts with students, possibly at the school, according to law enforcement officials.

The aide, Taleek Brooks, 40, made a video of himself touching a prepubescent child’s penis and another video in which he spanked a naked child, according to a complaint unsealed in Federal District Court in Brooklyn on Tuesday.

Law enforcement officials said the videos appeared to have been made inside Public School 243, in Crown Heights, where Mr. Brooks worked.

The gravity of the allegations was such that the schools chancellor, Dennis M. Walcott, visited the school shortly before dismissal on Tuesday.

“My personal reaction is one of disgust on the part of this individual,” Mr. Walcott said. “This case is a horrendous case, and it’s something that should not be tolerated.”

Still, Mr. Walcott said that a “screening system was in place” and that there had been no indications that Mr. Brooks had been abusing students. Then the chancellor went into the school to meet with faculty and staff members.

Mr. Brooks first came to the attention of federal agents in December, when an undercover F.B.I. agent signed into a file-sharing program and discovered a user with the username “T. S.” who had child pornography among his shared files, according to the complaint.

Agents later tracked the IP address of “T. S.” to Mr. Brooks’s home, according to the complaint. On Jan. 13, agents executed a search warrant there, seizing a computer and two external hard drives, among other items, and arrested Mr. Brooks.

Mr. Brooks told investigators that he had collected and saved over 1,000 files on his computers containing child pornography, according to the complaint.

Mr. Brooks was released on $100,000 bail on Jan. 27. A subsequent search of his computer files revealed the images and videos that led to the more serious charges.

Mr. Brooks appeared in court on Tuesday. When the prosecutor described the evidence against him, Mr. Brooks shook his head in objection. The presiding magistrate judge, Joan M. Azrack, who also presided over Mr. Brooks’s earlier bail hearing, revoked Mr. Brooks’s bail and ordered him detained.

“Had the evidence been before me a month ago showing he was a predator, there was no way I would have released him on any bail package,” Judge Azrack said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/nyregion/school-aide-accused-of-abusing-students-in-videos.html?scp=3&sq=child%20pornography&st=cse
BillRM
 
  0  
Thu 16 Feb, 2012 06:20 am
@firefly,
Facts are boring when it come to drumming up fear of the stranger who is downloading CP and then molesting children.



http://www.childmolestationprevention.org/pages/tell_others_the_facts.html



Which Children Do Child Molesters Target?


CHILDREN IN THE FAMILY

Biological Child
19%

Stepchild, Adopted or Foster Child
30%

Brothers & Sisters
12%

Nieces & Nephews
18%

Grandchild
5%

CHILDREN IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD

Child Left in My Care
5%

Child of Friend or Neighbor
40%

CHILDREN WHO ARE STRANGERS

Child Strangers
10%


Source: The Abel and Harlow Child Molestation Prevention Study.

Note: Since sexual abusers of children often molest children in more than one category, the categories total more than 100 percent. The same child molester may have molested his biological child and his stepchild, therefore, we cannot say that those two categories combined represent 49 percent, but must say that they represent a lower number.

Notice that only 10 percent of the child sexual abusers report that they molest a child who is a stranger.Let's put the facts together:

Child molesters exist in every part of our society.
They molest children close to them, mainly children in their family or children in their social circle.
Most child molesters, 90 percent, report that they know their child victims very well.
DrewDad
 
  2  
Thu 16 Feb, 2012 07:55 am
@hawkeye10,
Wow. A consistent worldview is now "a lie." Who knew?
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Thu 16 Feb, 2012 11:21 am
@BillRM,
Quote:

Facts are boring when it come to drumming up fear of the stranger who is downloading CP and then molesting children.

Who is drumming up fear of strangers?

That's why the child pornography arrests of teachers, coaches, pediatricians, etc, are disturbing--these people work around children, they are known to the children, and they are in positions of trust with children. Pedophiles should not be allowed around children, and pedophiles are the consumers of child pornography.

Apart from the fact, that the material you are posting has no relationship to the topic of child pornography, you are continuing to contradict your own argument that it is detrimental to the children in the family if the father/step-father/breadwinner is incarcerated on a child pornography charge.
In addition, you don't even understand the material you're posting.
Quote:
Child molesters exist in every part of our society.
They molest children close to them, mainly children in their family or children in their social circle.

Is that statement, which you posted, too hard for you to understand?

You seem to be ignoring the fact that the pedophile in the family may be the person most likely to sexually abuse the child, which is the main reason that those who are arrested for child pornography can not have unsupervised visits with their own children.

Your argument that a pedophile's children are more harmed when the breadwinner daddy goes to jail, so, therefore, pedophile fathers/step-fathers, etc. shouldn't be incarcerated is absurd. Fatherhood, or motherhood, is not a get-out-of-jail-free card when the parent has violated criminal laws--particularly laws regarding the sexual exploitation and sexual abuse of children.

Child pornography is illegal. Those who seek out, and download, and collect, and possess, and share, child pornography do so knowing they will be in serious legal difficulty if they are caught. The time they should worry about the consequences is before they seek out the child pornography.

Try connecting with reality. It would be a novel experience for you.

0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Thu 16 Feb, 2012 11:31 am
Quote:
Bridgewater State expert says victims of child pornography can suffer for years.
By Maria Papadopoulos
GateHouse News Service
Feb 16, 2012

BRIDGEWATER — Victims of child pornography can suffer for years after the crime occurs, especially if they knew the person who violated them, one expert said.

“When you look at sex or assault crimes, kids can suffer a little worse because it’s an adult that they trusted, and that can make it more psychologically damaging than if it’s a total stranger,” said Elizabeth Englander, a Bridgewater State College psychologist and author of “Understanding Violence.”

Englander added that such exploitation can affect a victim’s ability to form healthy relationships later on in life.

The region has seen a spate of child pornography cases in recent months stretching from Norton to Kingston, Middleboro to Plymouth.

Last month, Joseph Lucier, 50, of Norton, was charged with two counts of manufacturing child pornography, two counts of assault and battery on a child under 14 and two counts of possession of child pornography.

In November, 38-year-old Scott Morrill of Kingston was charged with possession of child pornography after police searched his home.

In October, Dennis King, 47, formerly of Middleboro, was arrested in Pembroke on three counts of possession of child pornography, exhibiting a child in the nude and photographing an unsuspecting nude person. It was the third set of child-pornography charges for King since September.

In August, Paul Teves, 35, a former West Bridgewater high school teacher and coach, was charged with distribution of child pornography. Authorities arrested Teves, of Fall River, after investigating his personal home Internet activities. He resigned from his teaching job in June.

In June, George H. Lunt, 27, of Plymouth, was sentenced to eight years in prison after pleading guilty to child pornography charges. Lunt, who admitted to possessing thousands of images and videos of prepubescent children and toddlers, and sadistic conduct, will spend five years on supervised release after his prison term.

Also in June, Christopher T. Roy, 38, of Middleboro, a Cub Scout volunteer who pleaded guilty to child pornography charges in March, was sentenced to an 18-month prison sentence. Roy was arrested in June 2010 at his Middleboro home after federal customs agents at a Dallas airport found several child pornography videos on Roy’s laptop as he returned from a business trip from Mexico.

http://www.tauntongazette.com/news/x440451882/Bridgewater-State-expert-says-victims-of-child-pornography-can-suffer-for-years#ixzz1mZDP8CjZ
BillRM
 
  1  
Thu 16 Feb, 2012 02:32 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
Bridgewater State expert says victims of child pornography can suffer for years.
By Maria Papadopoulos


Hmm any sexual abuse can have that affect on a child with or without pictures being taken and I had no problem with severe and harsh punishment for abusing children with or without pictures/video but we had not been talking about the punishment call for in dealing with such people but the secondary people who may not be on the same continent let alone the same country and may be viewing such materials decades after they was created.

It is not the same thing and not the same issue and does not call for the same level of punishment and confusing the issue is somewhat dishonest.
firefly
 
  1  
Thu 16 Feb, 2012 04:27 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
confusing the issue is somewhat dishonest

You're the only one confused about the issue. In your case, the problem appears to be sheer stupidity.

Those who seek out, possess, and share child pornography create the demand for more of it and they perpetuate the sexual exploitation and abuse of children. They also continue to violate the privacy of the children in the pornographic images they view.

If they didn't seek, collect, and share, child pornography, they wouldn't have to be concerned about the punishments. These people are knowingly violating criminal laws, both state and federal laws. And most of them share/distribute, as well as collect child pornography, and a significant percentage also sexually abuse children. So, the charges, and the prison time, do add up. But, they choose to do these things. These pedophiles choose to violate criminal laws, often several of them, knowing they were risking harsh punishments. And, when they are caught, they are held accountable for their behavior.

Stop being a bleeding heart for those who contribute to the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Thu 16 Feb, 2012 06:56 pm
@firefly,
firefly wrote:

Quote:
confusing the issue is somewhat dishonest

You're the only one confused about the issue. In your case, the problem appears to be sheer stupidity.


That's why he's so easily confused, perhaps you should stop using so many long words, and more pictures and emoticons. If you want Bill to understand, you've got to think like Dr. Doolittle.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Thu 16 Feb, 2012 10:23 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
Stop being a bleeding heart for those who contribute to the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children.


Which totally explains why a pic from the 1970's when such stuff was common and barely criminalized will get you into as much trouble as a recent pic.....as well as why anime child porn is also criminalized. The "save the children" speech is a bullshit rationalization. What is really going on is that we want to hammer guys who get turned on by little girls and boys, and we will enlist any excuse to lower the hammer, true or untrue.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  3  
Thu 16 Feb, 2012 10:30 pm
Quote:
Bus driver suspended after federal charges of child pornography
By WKTV News
Feb 16, 2012

UTICA, N.Y. (WKTV) - A Birnie School bus driver who drove buses for Birnie within the Utica School District has been suspended from his job following federal child pornography charges.

According to the U.S. District Attorney's office, David McMurray, 28, of Utica, faces up to 20 years in federal prison, a fine of $250,000 and a lifetime of supervised release. He was placed into custody pending a detention hearing scheduled for February 21, 2012.

McMurray is accused of possessing and distributing child pornography.

"Child pornography is the permanent record of a child being sexually exploited," said Nick DiNicola, assistant special agent in charge of Homeland Security Investigations in Albany. "These children are continually victimized every time those images are transmitted, downloaded, shared or viewed. HSI will continue to work closely with its law enforcement counterparts to vigorously investigate these cases and seek justice for the innocent victims
http://www.wktv.com/news/local/Bus-driver-suspended-after-federal-charges-of-child-pornography-139464533.html
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Thu 16 Feb, 2012 10:42 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
"These children are continually victimized every time those images are transmitted, downloaded, shared or viewed


I dare anyone to defend this assertion......proving it would be better but I know that ain't going to happen.
firefly
 
  3  
Fri 17 Feb, 2012 01:21 am
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
I dare anyone to defend this assertion......

You're a riot. Laughing

You've already announced that nothing that anyone says will convince you, by framing it as a dare.

So, why should anyone bother trying to convince you? Laughing
Quote:
"These children are continually victimized every time those images are transmitted, downloaded, shared or viewed...

I don't think the assertion needs defending--it's been established and accepted in case law and legal rulings.

If you can't understand the significant violation of the child's privacy involved in the viewing of the images, or the fact that the child did not agree to the distribution and possession of his or her images--images which are a record of a crime of sexual abuse being committed against that child--or that knowing that those images of their abuse are being viewed and re-viewed causes psychological distress, humiliation, shame, and loss of dignity to the victims--you're right, nothing will convince you.

So, you'll just have to settle for being unconvinced. I'm not interested in debating the issue with you.

For others, who might be interested, I am including the following information...
Quote:
Every day of my life I live in constant fear that someone will see my
pictures and recognize me and that I will be humiliated all over again. It
hurts me to know someone is looking at them – at me – when I was just a
little girl being abused for the camera. I did not choose to be there, but now
I am there forever in pictures that people are using to do sick things. I want
it all erased. I want it all stopped. . . My life and my feelings are worse
now because the crime has never really stopped . . . . It is hard to describe
what it feels like to know that at any moment, anywhere, someone is
looking at pictures of me as a little girl being abused by my uncle and is
getting some kind of sick enjoyment from it. It’s like I am being abused
over and over and over again . . . .

The above quote is from a victim impact statement submitted as part of a 34 page legal brief/motion seeking restitution from a defendant who possessed her image.
That brief also summarizes all of the legal rulings which have acknowledged and upheld the view that that the child is directly harmed by those who view and distribute their images.
Quote:
Sexual molestation by adults is often
involved in the production of child sexual performances. When such performances are recorded and distributed, the child’s privacy interests are also invaded.” Ferber, 458 U.S. at 758 n. 9 .

The Ferber Court also observed that the “materials produced are a permanent
record of the children’s participation and the harm to the child is exacerbated by their circulation.” ...
‘[P]ornography poses an even greater threat to the child victim than does
sexual abuse or prostitution. Because the child’s actions are reduced to a
recording, the pornography may haunt him in future years, long after the
original misdeed took place. A child who has posed for a camera must go
through life knowing that the recording is circulating within the mass
distribution system for child pornography.’ . . . ‘It is the fear of exposure
and the tension of keeping the act secret that seem to have the most
profound emotional repercussions.’...

Twenty-three years later, the Supreme Court again acknowledged the harm to
victims depicted in child pornography and observed that a new harm is caused each time the images are shared with someone different. Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234, 249 (2005) (noting that “as a permanent record of a child’s abuse, the continued circulation itself would harm the child who had participated. Like a defamatory statement, each new publication of the speech would cause new injury to the child’s reputation and emotional well-being.” ...

United States v. Norris, 159 F.3d 926, 929-930 (5th Cir. 1998), is among the most comprehensive. Rejecting defendant’s arguments that “simply receiving child pornography is a victimless crime,” and “the children depicted in child pornography can only be victims of the crime of receiving child pornography in an indirect or secondary sense,” the Norris court noted that the “‘victimization’ of the children involved does not end when the pornographer’s camera is put away.” Id. at 929. The consumer, or end recipient, of pornographic materials causes the children depicted in those materials tosuffer as a result of his actions in at least three ways:

First, the simple fact that the images have been disseminated perpetuates the
abuse initiated by the producer of the materials. “[T]he materials produced
are a permanent record of the children’s participation and the harm to the
child is exacerbated by their circulation.” The consumer who “merely” or
“passively” receives or possesses child pornography directly contributes to
this continuing victimization.

Second, the mere existence of child pornography represents an invasion of
the privacy of the child depicted. Both the Supreme Court and Congress
have explicitly acknowledged that the child victims of child pornography
are directly harmed by this despicable intrusion on the lives of the young
and the innocent. The recipient of child pornography obviously perpetuates
the existence of the images received, and therefore the recipient may be
considered to be invading the privacy of the children depicted, directly
victimizing these children.

Third, the consumer of child pornography instigates the original production
of child pornography by providing an economic motive for creating and
distributing the materials. . . .[T]here is no sense in distinguishing, as Norris
has done, between the producers and the consumers of child pornography.
Neither could exist without the other. The consumers of child pornography
therefore victimize the children depicted in child pornography by enabling
and supporting the continued production of child pornography, which
entails continuous direct abuse and victimization of child subjects.

The entire 34 page legal brief/motion can be read here.
http://centrallaw.com/PornGovtMotionRestitutionChart.pdf
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
Amanda Knox - Discussion by JTT
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/15/2025 at 04:01:32