Korean Job Discussion Forums

[bacasper]

Paying these kids what amounts to royalties can only have the exactly counterproductive effect of exacerbating the problem. I can just see future abuse victims lining up photographers as we type.

NYU Law Professor Amy Adler makes the point in her wonderful Columbia Law Review article, [url=cyber.law.harvard.edu/ilaw/Speech/Adler_full.html]"The Perverse Law of Child Pornography,"[/url] that these laws actually INCREASE the problem. Here we see that being potentially borne out.

Child Pornography, and an Issue of Restitution

By JOHN SCHWARTZ
Published: February 2, 2010

When Amy was a little girl, her uncle made her famous in the worst way: as a star in the netherworld of child pornography. Photographs and videos known as �the Misty series� depicting her abuse have circulated on the Internet for more than 10 years, and often turn up in the collections of those arrested for possession of illegal images.

Now, with the help of an inventive lawyer, the young woman known as Amy � her real name has been withheld in court to prevent harassment � is fighting back.

She is demanding that everyone convicted of possessing even a single Misty image pay her damages until her total claim of $3.4 million has been met.

Some experts argue that forcing payment from people who do not produce such images but only possess them goes too far.

In February, when the first judge arranged payment to Amy in a case in Connecticut, Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, called the decision �highly questionable� on his blog and said it �stretches personal accountability to the breaking point.�

The judge in the case acknowledged, �We�re dealing with a frontier here.�

continued at link

[Moldy Rutabaga]

Interesting (but unpleasant) subject.

Perhap 'royalties' isn't the right term to use. Would not a royalty payment suggest to the possessors of these images that having paid the fee, they have the right to the image? Is there such a thing as royalties on illegal products?

Legally, once a person had paid such a fee, would they be protected from further prosecution for possession of illegal images?

In the late 90s there was a sort of punishment levy placed on blank CDs in Canada. All it really did was suggest to people that they were entitled to pirate music, as they had already paid the fee. I'm not equating the two acts but there is a similarity in reasoning.

[Wishmaster]

Yeah, "royalties" is not the applicable world in this case.

[bacasper]

No, they are not really "royalties" which is why in my comment I phrased it as "what amounts to royalties." I mean, what else should we call getting paid for your photos?

[kabrams]

I think this is a really sad case for the girl, and as a fellow human being, I would like to see her take every penny from those heartless people who participated in that crime.

But I also can understand why some people in law are uneasy about what the judge is allowing her to do.

[bacasper]

[Fox]

[riverboy]

I am not sure what I think about the ruling, but I do think that those in possession of child pornography should be dealt with in the most swift and effective form of punishment possible.

While I am sure it is possible for a very small amount of child porn to inadvertently end up on ones computer, I would be quite comfortable with a law that confiscated the entire assests of an individual in possesion of a certain -large- amount. This would certanly be a great deterrent.

If the assets were then sold off and given to the children involved, then fine. Do the same to the producers and anyone involved. I believe in a very, very low tolerance for this kind of stuff.

[Fox]

[bacasper]

[riverboy]

[Fox]

[bacasper]

[riverboy]

Perhaps I am being a bit harsh here. But I am really p!ssed off at the coverups going on in the Catholic Church and throughout society.

Bacasper, you of all people should be aware of child sex trade cover up at the whitehoue. I'm not sure if it is true or not, but perhaps it goes much deeper?

I don't see people downloading child porn as harmless individuals. To me, they are sick people who give funds to the industry; thus making it thrive. I just can't buy the logic that kiddie porn reduces child molestation either.

It is exploitation at its worse and really there should be no room for it in society. I don't know the best way to limit it, but I do think that people contributing to the kiddieporn -or the snuff- industry are not far behind those who produce and take part in it. It is not a victimless crime and supporting it just sickens me.

I would hate to see my reaction if I came across kiddie porn on a friends computer. I can forgive a lot of things, but someone who takes pleasure in that kind of stuff brings out the worst in me.

I'm not for capital punishment, but the moment any adult harms one of my children in any way, is the moment they endanger their personal safety. I could easily do time in jail if it came to protecting my family.

[conrad2]

Are we talking about actively paying money to download pornographic images of children or just downloading what is available for free. Im sure there are some of us who have downloaded porn, and can you say for 100% certainty that any of the females in the videos were not 17 years old or younger. If so, is it fair for you to go to jail and have your life ruined?