scotus decision in child porn

[bendog]

I'm not surprised. And frankly, I'm a little torn. There were three options: Amy gets nothing, Amy gets it all from one bad guy, Amy has to collect from everyone who saw her rape video until she reaches the maximum amount of damages she can prove. They took the last option.

I thought the second was good, but my reaction was prejudicial against guys who like watching video of kids getting raped. It's not really a conservative view to allow a victim to collect all the damages from one person, regardless of the fact that he actually did not cause a large part of the damages to her. But it does make a certain utilitarian sense because the one guy will then go after all the other child prono viewers to get them to pay him back for the money he had to pay for the damage they did.

Supreme Court limits damages to victims of child porn, throws out $3.4 million award - The Washington Post

 

[Luddly Neddite]

But it said the amount of damages paid must be proximate to the harm that a specific offender has caused.

And if the child suffers for the rest of his/her life?

 

[bendog]

But it said the amount of damages paid must be proximate to the harm that a specific offender has caused.

And if the child suffers for the rest of his/her life?

Realizing monetary damages don't really correlate to the pain, the only recovery for the victim is going to be money. In this case they were calculated at something over 3million, as I recall. The exact figure is in the link.

 

[nodoginnafight]

This is a disturbing case and the decision (imho) raises more questions than it answers.
If she is entitled to $3.4 million from 70,000 people - does that mean she has to sue each individually and get $50 from each?

Congress screwed the pooch when they wrote this one - no doubt.

 

[strollingbones]

3.4 million or so....i think option b....she collects from the one main person and then he can try to sue the others....

 

[nodoginnafight]

3.4 million or so....i think option b....she collects from the one main person and then he can try to sue the others....

Would any of those others have even had the opportunity to do harm if the main guy hadn't victimized her?

She should get the $3.4 million from him. (imho)

 

[strollingbones]

isnt that option b?

here is what i dont get i have been on the net for a long time...i have looked at all kinds of porn.....male subs...etc and so forth....dog pounds...dont ask.....and never once has child porno popped up...and yet the defense is always accidental download? now how the hell does that happen....i have walked on the wild side...and not once have i been offered child porn...you got to seek it out and seek it out hard...

 

[OKTexas]

I don't really get this one, how can a person viewing an image of a crime, what ever the crime, contribute to the suffering of the victim, alive or dead. I can understand going after the ones that profit after the fact but not just those who viewed images of the crime. Hell, news agencies profit from the crimes they report and photograph, should they also have liability? Don't get me wrong I'm no fan of child porn, but there have to limits.

 

[bendog]

I guess I "try" to look at it this way. Say three trucks are driven negligently and they all hit a car with an innocent kid, who gets horribly injured. In regular autowreck law, each trucker is only liable for the damage he caused. But, when there's a connection between "wrong doers," like employee and owner and the employee is working when he hurts someone, then they're both on the hook for the full amount.

I dunno. I'm just leery about having rules applicable only to people who are morally repugnant.

 

[bendog]

I think that if there was a video of me being raped as a child, everytime some azzhole watched it for fun I'd be suffering an injury

 

[strollingbones]

seems the major problem lies in the writing of the original law

 

[JakeStarkey]

Tough decision to make, tough decision to understand.

 

[OKTexas]

I think that if there was a video of me being raped as a child, everytime some azzhole watched it for fun I'd be suffering an injury

That would require personal knowledge of the event wouldn't it. Whats the old saying about what you don't know?

 

[westwall]

I don't really get this one, how can a person viewing an image of a crime, what ever the crime, contribute to the suffering of the victim, alive or dead. I can understand going after the ones that profit after the fact but not just those who viewed images of the crime. Hell, news agencies profit from the crimes they report and photograph, should they also have liability? Don't get me wrong I'm no fan of child porn, but there have to limits.

Because if they weren't viewing it the crime wouldn't be committed.

 

[bendog]

maybe this is helpful

Opinion analysis: Dividing the duty to pay for child porn : SCOTUSblog

 

[buckeye45_73]

Yeah this is a case that unsettles me some and thats hard to do. So is the feeling from sotomeyer that everyone in,possesion of that video owes her 3.4 mill?

Thats insane. They should be in jail, its illegal to posses it, correct? Just kill her uncle and throw those with possesion in the pokey.

for the monetary damages, it should come from her uncle.

 

[Silhouette]

But it said the amount of damages paid must be proximate to the harm that a specific offender has caused.

And if the child suffers for the rest of his/her life?

Don't worry, she will...

Unless she gets counseling to help her embrace the crime/sexual dysfunction so she can become sexually promiscuous and enter the porn industry as she was imprined to become. As the statistics bear out for most kids who were molested. You know, in keeping with the California law that says children molested must be forced to endure compulsions from that crime without any reparative therapy intervention. She can try when she's 18 but by then the habits will be too ingrained to change.

Here's to Amy's career in promiscuity!...or whatever other adaptive compulsions she winds up with as a result of this assault on her..and must embrace as a matter of law.

Oh wait, that only applies when the kid is molested by a same gendered perp. Sorry. Carry on..

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I don't really get this one, how can a person viewing an image of a crime, what ever the crime, contribute to the suffering of the victim, alive or dead. I can understand going after the ones that profit after the fact but not just those who viewed images of the crime. Hell, news agencies profit from the crimes they report and photograph, should they also have liability? Don't get me wrong I'm no fan of child porn, but there have to limits.

Supply and demand.

If there was no demand, no one would be supplying it. Anyone who buys/watches the porn, directly caused the crime to be committed.

 

[Jarlaxle]

But it said the amount of damages paid must be proximate to the harm that a specific offender has caused.

And if the child suffers for the rest of his/her life?

Don't worry, she will...

Unless she gets counseling to help her embrace the crime/sexual dysfunction so she can become sexually promiscuous and enter the porn industry as she was imprined to become. As the statistics bear out for most kids who were molested. You know, in keeping with the California law that says children molested must be forced to endure compulsions from that crime without any reparative therapy intervention. She can try when she's 18 but by then the habits will be too ingrained to change.

Here's to Amy's career in promiscuity!...or whatever other adaptive compulsions she winds up with as a result of this assault on her..and must embrace as a matter of law.

Oh wait, that only applies when the kid is molested by a same gendered perp. Sorry. Carry on..

Silly, please stop sharing your fetishes/obsessions here. There ARE appropriate places for that, but this is not one of them!

 

[TemplarKormac]

I agree with this ruling. Unless the person directly profited from this pornography, you can't sue them for restitution or charge them with a crime. I mean yeah, they may have it on their machine, but you cannot simply go to each individual's house and search their hard drive for the offending material, and what's more you can't determine if they even distributed this material or not.

These people are monsters, and yes they are the scum of our society, but even they have constitutional rights, and our justice system cannot be construed as one that unmercifully punishes someone. We are treading a very slippery slope.