Friday, December 06, 2013
Should the persons depicted in child pornography be entitled to damages from the persons convicted of possessing such images? As the law stands persons convicted of possession of child pornography are jointly and severally liable to the persons in the photographs. The legal theory is that the mere existence of this material constitutes an ongoing tort, and that possessing or distributing it is the equivalent of the abuse involved in creating it. Is that true? Maybe it's true-- it is what Congress found when it enacted the statute, after all. That means we are obliged to treat it as true for the purposes of this discussion. This complicates the discussion, for me at least, because it sets up so much cognitive dissonance that I have a hard time getting to the merits. Really, a photograph of a horrific act is as bad as the act itself? But there it is, an act of Congress, signed into law.
// posted by Bill @ 8:01 AM 
|
Comments:
<< Home
This is certainly an interesting topic. It rather fits in with all the turmoil that the Priest sex scandals have uncovered. We should get into it when we are together.
<< Home
Post a Comment