Skip to main content

View Diary: Defendants' rights, victims' rights, and the worst of crimes (59 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  That was not clear in this case (0+ / 0-)

    The kiddie porn business works both ways.  The law predates the widespread use of the Internet.  In that period, it was mostly in the form of magazines or other printed matter, sent by mail, bought and paid for.  So if you were in possession of a magazine, it was highly likely that you paid someone for it, and that clearly contributed to the crimes involved in its production.

    For good measure, the criminal statutes threw in an adder for using a computer. This was when computers were still not as widespread, were a bit scary, and computer crime (breaking into bank or government computers) was a new fear for the newsmongers to raise.

    But with the web, there is not necessarily money changing hands.  Pictures can be shared; web sites can be free.  So while one can argue that any demand encourages supply, it is arguably not the same thing as sending money to the producer.  It is not obvious from the article if Paroline paid any money to anyone for the pictures.

    •  Don't call it "kiddie porn" (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lineatus, Errol

      They are videos and photos of children being raped. Calling it "kiddie porn" evokes images of children just posing for naked pictures. It's horrific rape of babies, toddlers, and children of all ages.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site