New Frontiers in Child Porn Law

Friday, January 24, 2014

Transcript

The Supreme Court is weighing how much defendants convicted of possessing images of child pornography should have to pay in restitution to the victims depicted in those images. The case involves a woman known as “Amy,” whose uncle raped her when she was a young girl and circulated photographs of the abuse online. He eventually went to jail, but those photos became among the most widely viewed child porn in the world. Karen Duffin reports on Amy’s quest for restitution.

 

Middlesex Times

Contributors:

Karen Duffin

Comments [5]

Idliketoremainnameless

My question or concern is how will this affect legit professional photographers who don't do child porn per say? For example I cna't remember her name right now but there is this famous photographer who made headlines when photos of her children got released and they were in sexy poses that many believed to be to be inappropriate for their young age. Will situations like this be considered child porn and will photographers like this get in trouble for taking such pictures that weren't taken for the purpose of pornography?

Feb. 04 2014 11:38 PM

If my understanding of this is correct, does this mean that we could possibly have a new way of locating and prosecuting child pornography offenders? Could the idea of "one person being allowed to go after all other defendants committing the same crime" help us to locate more and more child pornography offenders? Could it be possible that because of this breakthrough in utilizing the "Violence against Women Act" we might be able to enact a sort of legislation extending to ALL who become victims of rape, molestation and abuse? The internet does pose some challenges to being able to prosecute so many individuals and therefore request restitution from them for their crimes, but with this discovery, will we move forward in this field and be able to bring some sense of closure to so many victims of this same kind of abuse?

Feb. 04 2014 09:26 PM
Ashley

The phrase "a curious click" has been stuck in my craw since hearing this story last week. It sounded too much like an endorsement.

Being "curious" about child pornography means:

a) You are a sociopath.
b) You are an accomplice to the terrible suffering and violent deaths of innocent children.
d)You need help.

Feb. 02 2014 07:50 PM
Janis Charles from Seattle, Washington

Dear On the Media: I am an attorney and a mother of three grown children. All of my children understand all the elements of social media that I did not grow up with. I am only on Linked In with my professional description and affiliations. This is the first time in my life I have ever posted a public comment. I will leave the debate regarding "proximate cause" to others. What I need to say is this: the piece on the rape of an 8-year-old child by her uncle, and his subsequent posting of the rape on the Internet for other viewers of child pornography ended with this statement: "It's a hard day to be a judge." Here is what I need to say: For all the children since time immemorial, for all the women, for all the men, for all the boys, for all the girls, for all the fragile and damaged members of this human species: It is a hard day to be a child. It is a hard second, it is a hard minute, when you are being molested, abused, and/or raped; a second, a minute becomes a lifetime. It is a hard week, it is a hard month, it is a hard year, it is a hard century, it is a hard millennium. It is a hard life. For the countless billions of children on this planet and in this universe - it is a hard lifetime. For the countless billions of women and girls, boys and men who have been, and are in this moment in time, being raped, abused, molested, and subject to any number of atrocities, it is hell.

Respectfully submitted,

Janis Charles
Attorney-at-Law
Environmental Scientist
Seattle, Washington

Jan. 26 2014 11:14 PM
Jonathan

The correspondent is decidedly wrong about the legal concept of proximate cause.

At 8:18, Ms. Duffin defines "proximate cause" as "an act from which an injury results and without which the injury would not have occurred." There are two types of causation in tort law: actual causation (aka cause in fact) and proximate causation. Ms. Duffin's definition is actually that of the former.

Her wording is very similar to the definition provided at http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/proximate+cause, which is "An act from which an injury results as a natural, direct, uninterrupted consequence and without which the injury would not have occurred."

However, Ms. Duffin left out the most critical element of the definition, that the act result "as a natural, direct, uninterrupted consequence." This is what makes proximate cause not only different from actual cause, but an important limit on liability where actual cause does exist.

Jan. 26 2014 11:29 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.