scotus decision in child porn

[whitehall]

Approximate the harm. That says it all.

 

[TemplarKormac]

And here is the actual opinion for anyone interested:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-8561_7758.pdf

 

[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.

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.

So if I buy a crime novel about your murder, I caused your murder. Sorry, don't buy it.

 

[Yurt]

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

i think this law is bizarre and the court seemingly agrees.

my question is: how does she know someone is watching it?

 

[Plasmaball]

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...

dog pounds? thats a new one.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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

i think this law is bizarre and the court seemingly agrees.

my question is: how does she know someone is watching it?

Unless she's the NSA, she doesn't.

 

[Plasmaball]

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.

i agree....

 

[Yurt]

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.

actually, this is incorrect. at best, you may have INdirectly caused the crime to be committed. in order to be direct, you would have the be the main perp.

for example - is america to blame for having a better economy and "forcing" illegals to cross our borders via land, ship or air?

 

[Yurt]

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

i think this law is bizarre and the court seemingly agrees.

my question is: how does she know someone is watching it?

Unless she's the NSA, she doesn't.

exactly, so how then can she be harmed by their viewing her?

i used to be pro death penalty, however, i am still pro eunuch for pedophiles.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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!

Sil, you have demonstrated you are mentally ill.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I think SCOTUS went the correct way here.
In a civil suit the plaintiff has the burden of proof. And most importantly the plaintiff must prove the defendant was negligent or liable for the harm the plaintiff claims.
With that said, SCOTUS ruled based on the plaintiff's ability to apply a proportionate amount of negligent harm. So if several people caused harm, the plaintiff and their attorney must prove the share of the negligence among the several defendants.
In this case it appears that the harm claimed by the plaintiff was caused by 70,000 individuals who were purported to have viewed the video. Of course the courts cannot permit the entire burden be borne by just one defendant just because the plaintiff was successful in getting that one person to appear and face the plaintiff.
One of the issues facing civil suits tried before a jury is the emotion factor. The plaintiff's attorneys need not try the case based on facts. All they have to do is make the plaintiff appear as pathetic as possible and let the jury's sympathy take care of the rest.

 

[Yurt]

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!

Sil, you have demonstrated you are mentally ill.

says the liar who edited his post and claimed i altered it because i quoted it before your edit and showed anyone who reads it how stupid you are

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

That appears to be the question SCOTUS was attempting to answer.
The question for them is who is financially liable. The person who produced and disseminated the video( which is a crime and theoretically caused the victim harm)? Or the people who downloaded and viewed the video( also a crime and also caused the victim harm)?
I think if the plaintiff had asked for compensation from only the person who produced the video, the award would have been upheld.

 

[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.

i agree....

Glad to hear it, PB!

 

[Plasmaball]

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.

i agree....

Glad to hear it, PB!

i feel drity

 

[Jughead]

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.

Absolutely. There is no gray area here. Possession of child porn is a crime, period.

 

[Yurt]

i agree....

Glad to hear it, PB!

i feel drity

i feel dirtier for just reading this