Skip to main content

If you're eight or nine years old and you're raped and your rapist puts the photos on the internet, the United States Supreme Court says, it's wrong to seek compensatory damages from people who share those images even if a FEDERAL APPEALS COURT awards them to you.

In a 5-4 decision, the justices struck a compromise in the case of "Amy," whose images — taken by her uncle when she was 8 and 9 years old — have become some of the most popular on the Internet for traffickers in child pornography.
.
It's potentially arguable that Sonia Sotomayor's dissenting opinion, say the majority today in their unconscionable decision denying full compensation to a rape victim

whose rapist put up online pictures of what he did to her in her childhood, that having an offender pay the full amount of a court's award is an "unconstitutional, exessive" form of punishment.

The 5-4 decision upholds part of the Violence Against Women Actwhich calls for restitution to victims of child pornography, but it adopts a middle-ground position on how to set the amount.  It said those who possess the images must pay something because they have contributed to the abuse.
“It makes sense to spread the payment among a larger number of offenders in amounts more closely in proportion to their respective causal roles and their own circumstances,” said Justice Anthony Kennedy. “This would serve the twin goals of helping the victim achieve eventual restitution for all of her child pornography losses and impressing upon offenders the fact that child pornography crimes, even simple possession, affect real victims.”
His opinion in Paroline vs. United States leaves it to federal judges to decide on the proper amount in each case.

http://www.latimes.com/...

Scalia. Roberts. Thomas. Alito. Kennedy.

Kennedy, who wrote the opinion.
Kennedy, who's supposed to be the liberal voice on this court.

Care to know what the victim thought? Here's her attorney's take on it.

Justice Sotomayor, who's really not thrilled with her colleagues over their affirmative action decision yesterday,dissented separately from Thomas and Alito.

The victim's uncle raped her; upon conviction he was ordered to pay $6,000 in restitution, because he had photographed her during the abuse and put the photos on the Internet. She found out, and sued. She went to courts around the country seeking damages from those who possessed the images of her rape. One of these was a Texas man named Doyle Paroline. A federal court ruled against her, saying she had no proof Paroline's possession of the photos of her rape as a child contributed to her abuse or caused her to be abused. A New Orleans federal appeals court took the opposite approach and awarded her a total of $3.4 million. The USSC today reversed that judgment, but said some federal judge should assess "fair" damages against Paroline.

Chief Justice John Roberts, along with Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, filed a dissent from Kennedy's ruling, saying Congress hadn't clearly stated how judges should decide such damages.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Your comments don't make any sense. (10+ / 0-)

    Kennedy is not the liberal on this court.

    Ginsburg and Hagan were part of the majority—and they are liberal (as is Breyer, also part of the majority).

    And, as far as the verdict is concerned: why is this person being fined $3 million but her uncle—the one who actually took the photographs in the first place—only $6,000. This is a "cruel and unusual punishment" situation.

    •  Kennedy is the most liberal of the 5 conservatives (8+ / 0-)

      He's called the swing Justice - but he was appointed by Reagan in 1988.

      Anyone who's followed our courts knows that Reagan radicalized them to a frightening degree, by introducing much stricter litmus tests in appointing judges (at all levels), and paying less attention to qualifications and impartiality, than any President before him. We've been in an ugly tug-of-war ever since. There's no way Reagan would've appointed a liberal Justice.

      But Kennedy, like Roberts, is a conservative who likes to appear reasonable (unlike the troll Scalia, fanboy Alito, and mute Thomas).

      "Every man has a right to utter what he thinks truth" Samuel Johnson

      by Brecht on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 03:30:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Kennedy wrote the denial of damages ruling (5+ / 0-)

      and Kennedy is not usually identified with the RATS court.
      He apparently should be.

      LBJ, Van Cliburn, Ike, Wendy Davis, Lady Bird, Ann Richards, Barbara Jordan, Molly Ivins, Sully Sullenburger, Drew Brees: Texas is NO Bush League!

      by BlackSheep1 on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 03:32:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Off on both counts. (8+ / 0-)

        1) He is most definitely more identified with those four than the others, as is well documented in the tables of interjustice agreement that are published every year. Focusing on his swing votes, as in gay rights cases, obscures his general tendencies. More importantly...

        2) The ruling does not deny Amy damages. It sends the case back down the chain so that an appropriate damage award can be determined.

        Blame Congress for this one. The law itself created the problem. And the 11th Circuit decision that you like is the one out of step with the others on the specific legal issue, which gave rise to the conflict for SCOTUS to resolve. Kennedy sometimes does more harm than good with his convoluted multifactor tests, but at least he tries to give some guidance to trial judges to implement the intent of the law. The conservative dissenters would have tossed the whole deal and given her nothing.

    •  The uncle is dead. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Bisbonian, nellgwen, Sparhawk

      The issue is who should do the work of collecting all the damages due to the victim, she herself, or one of the offenders.

      It's *Gandhi*, not Ghandi

      by poco on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 04:20:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  ... (6+ / 0-)

    http://hereandnow.wbur.org/...

    ROBIN YOUNG, HOST:

    And a sensitive topic now, maybe not for kids' ears. The Supreme Court decided today in a case questioning just how much someone convicted of viewing child pornography must pay to the victims in the pictures. Courts in various states have awarded payment to victims, but a federal appeals court in New Orleans ordered Texan Doyle Randall Paroline to pay over $3.4 million to a woman known in court papers as Amy.

    And today the Supreme Court threw out that judgment, saying there is a limit on how much victims can recover from one person convicted of looking at images. And we spoke about this case before it went to the highest court. We'll post our reporting at hereandnow.org. But let's bring in David Savage, Supreme Court correspondent for the Los Angeles Times on today's ruling. So David, what else did the court say when they overturned, in the majority, this judgment?

    There is a link at the site , its worth a listen , they present the info well .

    "please love deeply...openly and genuinely." A. M. H.

    by indycam on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 03:29:03 PM PDT

  •  not really a 5-4 decision (9+ / 0-)

    It is more of an 8-1 decision.

    Kennedy, Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Elena Kagan -- defendent should something, but not the actual award.  Likely a couple thousand dollars to 10-20k.

    Roberts, Scalia, Thomas -- defendent should pay nothing.

    Sotomayor -- original award should stand

    So if you agree with Sotomayor, bear in mind that 8 justices disagree with you.  It can't really be framed as a liberal/conservative split.

  •  Looking at pictures == $3.2 million? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shaso, Rich in PA

    I realize possessors of CP aren't exactly popular but give me a break.

    Never touched anyone. Possesses a series of bits in a particular order on his hard disk. $3.2 million. Does not compute.

    (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
    Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

    by Sparhawk on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 03:56:05 PM PDT

    •  As far as i recall, (this issue was on NPR (11+ / 0-)

      a few weeks ago) the issue is who should do the work to collect the damages. Should the victim of the abuse be forced to go state to state and sue over and over to collect the 6-8 thousand that is owed her by all who downloaded that porn? Or should it be one of the owners of the porn?

      The victim and her lawyer's opinion was that one of the extremely wealthy possessors of the porn, Doyle Paroline, should pay the amount and then collect the rest of the damages from all the other possessors of this porn, thus shifting the burden of collecting to one of the offenders as opposed to the victim.  

      The uncle is dead, btw.

      It's *Gandhi*, not Ghandi

      by poco on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 04:19:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Ok (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        raincrow

        Thanks for clarifying.

        It's still stupid. So now one of the people who owes $6k in this lawsuit is forcibly deputized to go collect millions from other people? Not his/her job.

        (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
        Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

        by Sparhawk on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 04:25:28 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Let me ask this... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          poco, BlackSheep1, Lonely Texan

          If a man has $10,000 in the bank and is fined $10,000.  What is the impact of his punishment? It is his entire net worth and thrusts him into poverty.  If a man has a million dollars and is fined $10,000, then what is the effect of his punishment?  A mere 1% of his wealth which is a slap on the wrist.  Are the fines supposed to be punative or compensatory?

          If the argument is that the victim is due an amount based on the severity of the crime, then it should fall on the perpatrators to fulfill that obligation.  If the harm committed was equally shared but the ability to compensate is not equally shared (not everyone has a million dollars to pay out), is it the obligation of the victim or the perpatrators to find the equitable manner in which to share the burden of the compensation?  

          I think a liberal point of view would be that the perpatrators should pay in whatever split they can come up with and then settle the matter between themselves as to who was treated unfairly.  A more conservative viewpoint would be that the fine should be equitably split and the victim should be responsible for extracting the total sum from the individual perpatrators.

          No one argues that the victim was harmed.  No sensible person argues whether the victim deserves compensation (and no amount of money is enough to fix the damage done).  The only question is whether the victim should get all of the money from the one most capable of paying and letting them figure out how to get reimbursed from the other perpatrators or try to track down and get compensation over and over again from each person who harmed them.  Purchasing and viewing child porn is not a victimless crime.  Real people are hurt and that hurt is continued by those willing to pay to watch so they can fulfill their perverted fantasies.  The victim should not have to go figuratively door to door to retrieve their due compensation.  Let the perpetrators go door to door to get their money back from their co-conspirators.

          "Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not YET sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favour..."

          by Buckeye Nut Schell on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 07:26:01 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  So Sparhawk: "does not compute" (0+ / 0-)

          means you're ok with child porn originating from rape?
          or means you're ok with the victim having to hunt down and sue in every court for every instance?

          LBJ, Van Cliburn, Ike, Wendy Davis, Lady Bird, Ann Richards, Barbara Jordan, Molly Ivins, Sully Sullenburger, Drew Brees: Texas is NO Bush League!

          by BlackSheep1 on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 08:16:55 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Lol (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            wildweasels
            means you're ok with
            No, I'm certainly not "ok" with it.

            Are you ok with terrorists blowing up American buildings? No? Then why aren't you supporting the Iraq war, traitor?

            "OK with" is an emotionally charged weasel word that it is frankly beneath you to use in a discussion like this one.

            I think people who commit physical crimes against children should be thrown in jail. I think the situation gets murkier when you talk about people far removed from the crime itself (especially since some material that is even more objectionable than this material is perfectly legal) and demanding $3.2 million from an individual who never touched anyone is overkill. The Court agrees with me.

            (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
            Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

            by Sparhawk on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 08:54:51 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  see, I consider possession /use of the porn the (0+ / 0-)

              rapist SOLD to be a crime too. Against the same child.

              And every ucker they can catch with the images? I'd rico his ass under the Supermax where he can eat beans shot in with a straw once a week.

              These uckers create a MARKET for this crap. They're accomplices.

              LBJ, Van Cliburn, Ike, Wendy Davis, Lady Bird, Ann Richards, Barbara Jordan, Molly Ivins, Sully Sullenburger, Drew Brees: Texas is NO Bush League!

              by BlackSheep1 on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 09:08:58 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yeah (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                wildweasels, MGross

                Different people have different opinions, I'm sure.

                I try not to let my personal extreme disgust get in the way of clear thinking about civil liberties and the rights of the accused in cases like this one (or other crimes).

                (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
                Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

                by Sparhawk on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 09:17:11 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  what about the rights of the victims or (0+ / 0-)

                  the public good and stopping these uckers from having their rocks off raping children for fun and profit?

                  It's a public health menace at the very least.

                  LBJ, Van Cliburn, Ike, Wendy Davis, Lady Bird, Ann Richards, Barbara Jordan, Molly Ivins, Sully Sullenburger, Drew Brees: Texas is NO Bush League!

                  by BlackSheep1 on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 09:37:24 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Not every court agrees with you... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Lonely Texan

              since the supreme court was overturning a lower court ruling.  And, since the court does not know you exist or what your viewpoint is, I would say it is more like you agree with them.  That means you agree with the same court that believes that we live in a post racial world where states would never deny groups of people the right to vote because of their race and that money is speech and would never be used to corrupt the government.  You are agreeing with some mighty fine, upstanding citizens there Sparhawk.

              The simple fact here is that you do not seem to see possession of child pornography as a physical crime that victimizes the child involuntarily exposed.  I see it as an extension of the rape itself that revictimizes the person for years to come every time it is watched, bought, sold, traded or otherwise redistributed.  You do not feel these criminals are as guilty as the person who physically rapes the child and I see it as enabling an industry that promotes the horrific abuse of children.

              $3.2 million dollars is a lot of money to some people and hardly anything to others.  It could be $3.2 trillion dollars and it would not be enough if it was one of my children.  What amount would you say the raping and continued exposing of a nine year old daughter be worth?  No amount of money would be overkill and I wouldn't wish something like that to occur to you or my worst enemy.  

              I have come to a belief that the death penalty is wrong because of the inabilty to know for certain that anyone is truly guilty but if I was to be in favor of it, it would be for child molesters.  Even though they may not have physically killed someone, they have robbed a child of ever having a life free of an intense pain that may lessen from time to time but will never fully go away.  They are monsters in the purest sense of the word and I have absolutely no sympathy for any of them and certainly not for how large a fine they must pay for their promotion of this sick perversion.  Take every penny he ever had or will ever have and let him rot in a jail cell for all I care.  Is that emotional?  Hell yes but that does not make it wrong.  

              "Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not YET sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favour..."

              by Buckeye Nut Schell on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 10:19:06 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  What is more objectionable than the (0+ / 0-)

              sexual assault of an 8 year old child by a family member?  These aren't "bits in a certain configuration," they're depictions of child rape.  

      •  Was she offering to assign him the 175 (0+ / 0-)

        or so restitution orders she already had against other defendants in exchange for $3.5 million? (I haven't seen/heard the interview yet, so maybe that's explained.)

    •  A person seeing child porn should call the police (4+ / 0-)

      promptly to let them know about the crime toward a child.  Buying, selling or trading child porn encourages abuse of children.

      The damages from the pictures themselves are very serious.  Imagine that the victim became a teacher.  Then imagine that the pictures of the abuse surfaced.  How would it be for the victim to teach a room with boys that had seen pictures her being hurt and humiliated?  In red states the victim might be pressured to resign by administrators due to her degraded "morality".   (Todd Aiken did not lose by that many points.)

      There is always at least one male co-worker who is a thorough jerk.  The jerk often waits until the decent guys are not around to object to harassment of women he is targeting. Just imagine what a jerk could do to a woman with these kind of photos to hassle her about.  The victim of child porn photos could never know when vicious remarks about the abuse would be used to humiliate her.  She could never feel safe from nasty 'jokes' about the photos.

      •  So, it's OK with you that XXX government agency (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sparhawk

        has the ability to monitor everyone's computer transactions to ferret out who has seen what?

        Otherwise, how would you expect to catch those beyond the initial perps?

        You may have child porn links in your SPAMTRAP accounts right now (assuming you have any to start with). How would you convince an investigator you didn't solicit them?

        The person carrying the rope isn't always the one who suffers beneath it.

        •  These perverts have to get the pictures from (0+ / 0-)

          molesters.  Traditional police work involving warrants is the appropriate way to catch them.  There is a difference between having unsolicited links and having hundreds of uploaded pictures of children being abused.  

          NSA cyberstalking is not the way to catch these perverts.  Paper photos do not leave an electronic trail.  Pictures uploaded from a CD or thumb drive would be hard to spot just by monitoring internet activity.  

    •  If you are looking at child porn, then you have (6+ / 0-)

      done something to keep that chain of abuse alive to gain access to that image and so you have touched someone by proxy. You have bought something that could only be produced during a felonious act of sexual assault on a minor child.

      Keeping that image circulating is causing untold, and continuous anxiety to the survivor--who will always wait until that image comes back to haunt him or her in some fashion at some point in their lives.

      Now add facial recognition technology, rinse and repeat.

      :(

      "It were a thousand times better for the land if all Witches, but especially the blessing Witch, might suffer death." qtd by Ehrenreich & English. For Her Own Good, Two Centuries of Expert's Advice to Women pp 40

      by GreenMother on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 05:59:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Is it worth $3.2 million (0+ / 0-)

        (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
        Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

        by Sparhawk on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 06:07:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It might be. How many times did you sell or trade (5+ / 0-)

          the image before you were caught? And how many images of the same child did you purchase?

          "It were a thousand times better for the land if all Witches, but especially the blessing Witch, might suffer death." qtd by Ehrenreich & English. For Her Own Good, Two Centuries of Expert's Advice to Women pp 40

          by GreenMother on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 06:09:40 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  And how many children did you show it to, and how (4+ / 0-)

            many fellow pedophiles did you share the image with even without transmitting it to another machine? Did you print the image at any time on a printer? How many times and did you sell or trade those images too?

            "It were a thousand times better for the land if all Witches, but especially the blessing Witch, might suffer death." qtd by Ehrenreich & English. For Her Own Good, Two Centuries of Expert's Advice to Women pp 40

            by GreenMother on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 06:10:37 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Calculate the long term health deficits caused by (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Lonely Texan, misslegalbeagle

              rape, child sex abuse, the bullying, substance abuse, anxiety, lost wages, therapy, broken marriages or the inability to maintain a mature relationship, any venereal diseases acquired by the assaults, future reproductive problems--physical and psychological, and add up all the money that costs the victim over their life time.

              Rape whether it happens to a child or an adult, is not a one time event. It is a thing that travels in time with the survivor, and affects many, if not every aspect of their life and the lives of the people around them.

              Certainly no one wants to be defined as a permanent victim, however our society deals with this subject so poorly, that often we find ways to make sure that people feel the stigma and the need to remain silent and alone.

              It's only been very recently, that survivors were allowed by society to be visibly outraged, much less pursue damages.

              "It were a thousand times better for the land if all Witches, but especially the blessing Witch, might suffer death." qtd by Ehrenreich & English. For Her Own Good, Two Centuries of Expert's Advice to Women pp 40

              by GreenMother on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 08:46:10 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Glad you listed the damages, GreenMother. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                GreenMother, misslegalbeagle

                It absolutely is worth 3.2 million. I don't think people think about that enough, or even know, how these sorts of crimes can totally destroy potential, and actually create lives of poverty as well, often, due to the high costs of mental illness.

                I am not saying that all victims become mentally ill, but ptsd is common and very very expensive.  And often disabling.

                •  There are studies showing relationships between (0+ / 0-)

                  physical abuse, sexual assault and bullying (which pedophilia can involve all three) and a lifetime of health troubles and even chronic conditions not limited to psychological problems like PTSD, Anxiety, Sleep Disorders, Depression, arrested cognitive development, because Neuroplasticity goes both ways.

                  A child that is left untreated who grows up with something like chronic sleep disorders/PTSD/ Anxiety --they might do sort of okay up til their 30s. But all that deprivation will take it's toll on their body, as it starts to break down and not heal itself due to something as simple as a long term lack of sleep.

                  According to a new Mayo Clinic study, a history of child abuse significantly impacts the wide range of challenges facing depressed inpatients. Included are an increase in suicide attempts, prevalence of substance use disorder, and a higher incidence rate of personality disorder.

                  Additionally, these victims also had an earlier onset of mental illness and an increase in psychiatric hospitalizations for psychiatric issues. The study was presented at the American Psychiatric Association 2009 Annual Meeting in San Francisco.
                  Science Daily

                  Our country doesn't do mental illness. It's sort of like how we treat basic dental care as cosmetic. So the costs of this could add up to a lot very quickly.

                  Abused girls may have a higher risk of heart attack and stroke.

                  Repeated episodes of forced sex in childhood or adolescence had a 62 percent higher risk of cardiovascular disease as adults.
                  Given in this case, that her uncle was involved, chances are, there were repeated encounters, grooming, and gods know what else that lead up to this.
                  "The single biggest factor explaining the link between severe child abuse and adult cardiovascular disease was the tendency of abused girls to have gained more weight throughout adolescence and into adulthood,' said Janet Rich-Edwards, Sc.D., M.P.H., lead author of the study and associate professor in the Department of Medicine at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, Mass.
                  I have seen this a lot. Part of the weight gain might be psychological, but the other half of that equation may be the chronic stress put on the endocrine system. You are unlikely to lose weight if your thyroid poops out due to stress. Your adrenal glands will likely follow, see Adrenal Exhaustion. This too can lead to Poly Cystic Ovarian Syndrome, infertility, Endometriosis, and that can lead to reproductive cancers.

                  Hurting people like that has a gigantic domino effect on their life.

                  Associations of severe abuse were stronger for stroke than for heart attack. Risk factors such as adult body mass index, smoking, alcohol use, hypertension and diabetes accounted for 41 percent of the association of severe physical abuse and 37 percent of the association of forced sex with cardiovascular disease events.
                  Rates for this were higher with male survivors as well.

                  Peptic Ulcers (is anyone really surprised by this? )
                  There are even links to birth defects/conditions for children born of women who have been abused as children.
                  We even find gene alterations in some abuse survivors, that involve the deregulations of stress hormones.

                  Epigenetics is nothing to sneeze at. Not only will this affect biochemistry, but this could be the culprit behind gene silencing, that leads to cancer and other chronic diseases associated with abuse of children.

                  The issue here--but that guy didn't touch her directly, he only watcher her being raped. Yes, and he is a part of a chain of offenders that keeps her rapes in the present by circulating this recording to people just like her uncle, people who want to be offenders or who are offenders. This is a psychic injury to her. He is getting off on her pain and misery sexually, while simultaneously insuring this recording never dies, but is distributed to more and more offenders.

                  He creates a market for Child Abuse. He creates a market for recordings of rape and molestation. And unfortunately there are people more than willing to "fill that need."

                  This is the darkest aspect of Vulture Capitalism, feeding off of the human greed, and misery of the world for profit, end result be damned.

                  Also all of these issues that resulted or that were intensified as a result of the abuse, would have happened before the ACA. What is the economic status of this family and was this child able to get affordable health care to treat any additional conditions that arose as a result of her abuse, and that includes mental health care, medication, and treatment for illnesses as a result of chronic stress, and anxiety.

                  "It were a thousand times better for the land if all Witches, but especially the blessing Witch, might suffer death." qtd by Ehrenreich & English. For Her Own Good, Two Centuries of Expert's Advice to Women pp 40

                  by GreenMother on Thu Apr 24, 2014 at 07:37:03 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  I don't always classify PTSD as an illness the way (0+ / 0-)

                  one might classify schizophrenia. If you think about it, PTSD is a normal reaction to a situation(s) so severe that the mind recognizes the fragility of (for lack of a better phrase) the social contract.

                  People walk out their doors every day knowing that the people they meet on the street will not jump on them and rape them or hurt them. That their family members are there to care for them, even when completely vulnerable and helpless, the same for first responders, teachers, priests, or fellow military members.

                  When that illusion is destroyed. A person never looks at society the same again. Not because they imagined something bad might happen, but because something terrible did happen (in some cases multiple times).

                  They are not going to go back to the way they were before. They might find a way to fake it, but they will always be scrutinizing others on a level that (nonabused) people don't think about. Always on guard. Even after the flashbacks have subsided, and the nightmares are less frequent, that extra level of scrutiny will always be there.

                  The rest of society has an inappropriate response because they want the survivor to go back to the way they were. That boundary has been destroyed forever and cannot be rebuilt. The survivor can find ways to adapt, but that's not the same as the unawareness they had before the abuse.

                  In this way, society often adds to the stress by failing to recognize the permanent changes in a survivor and giving them the room and the permission they need to adapt. This can lead to more psychological problems as the survivor tries to force themself to comply but cannot, and only makes their anxiety worse.

                  "It were a thousand times better for the land if all Witches, but especially the blessing Witch, might suffer death." qtd by Ehrenreich & English. For Her Own Good, Two Centuries of Expert's Advice to Women pp 40

                  by GreenMother on Thu Apr 24, 2014 at 07:47:53 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, absolutely. The victim has said (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          GreenMother

          that she feels like the abuse never ends because these photos continue to circulate.  

  •  This is legally a good bit more complicated (6+ / 0-)

    than pro-rape or anti-rape.

    •  Yep. (7+ / 0-)

      This isn't about whether you care about child pornography and rape, but how to interpret this:

      Section 2259 states a broad restitutionary purpose: It requires district courts to order defendants “to pay the victim . . . the full amount of the victim’s losses as determined by the court,” §2259(b)(1), and expressly states that “[t]he issuance of a restitution order under this section is mandatory,” §2259(b)(4)(A). Section 2259(b)(2) provides that “[a]n order of restitution under this section shall be issued and enforced in accordance with section 3664,” which in turn provides in relevant part that “[t]he burden of demonstrating the amount of the loss sustained by a victim as a result of the offense shall be on the attorney for the Government,” §3664(e).

      The threshold question the Court faces is whether §2259 limits restitution to those losses proximately caused by the defendant’s offense conduct.

      •  That last part is interesting. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sparhawk

        If it doesn't limit restitution to those losses (etc. etc.) then can it possibly be constitutional?  Restitution by definition is for something that you did, so the concept of restitution in excess of what you did doesn't make sense to me; it's punitive rather than restitutive and thus would seem to be outside the scope of the section. But maybe I'm taking too colloquial a view of the word.

        I see in the NY Times article, or at least in the comments, that "joint and several liability" is invoked, but I always thought that was for an indivisible occurrence with many necessary co-authors, e.g. a car that skidded on an icy road when there was bad driving, bad brakes, lack of a guard rail, and other things all of which were necessary elements of the bad outcome.  In this case there's no such indivisible occurrence, i.e. the victim would have been precisely as harmed if any individual viewer hadn't viewed the abuse.

        It's not the side effects of the cocaine/I'm thinking that it must be love

        by Rich in PA on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 06:31:18 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It depends how you define harm... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          poco, BlackSheep1, Lonely Texan

          Was the victim harmed by someone viewing the rape?  I would argue yes.  If I were raped and someone purposely and illegally watched the video without notifying the athorities then I would say I was emotionally irrepairably harmed and how do you put a price on that harm?

          Is there a dollar amount you would accept to be raped and then have that rape shown and shared all over the internet over and over again?  Would you feel victimized each and every time it was bought and sold for someone else's sick pleasure?

          In my opinion, the emotional trauma caused to that young woman is not able to be labeled with a price and therefore, no amount is too much.  If that person has the ability to pay then he should be responsible for retrieving the excess amount he feels was charged to him from the other perpetrators.  The victim should only have to prove damage once.

          "Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not YET sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favour..."

          by Buckeye Nut Schell on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 07:36:54 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  This is kind of a strange issue, though. (0+ / 0-)
            If I were raped and someone purposely and illegally watched the video without notifying the authorities then I would say I was emotionally irreparably harmed and how do you put a price on that harm?
            We're talking about emotional harm based solely on the perception that people viewed an image.  What if you believed people were viewing the image but it never actually circulated?  Then you'd have suffered the harm but have no one to recover from.

            Alternatively, what if you were an adult and the rape happened in a public place?  The images there aren't illegal to possess, but you've still suffered the same harm.

  •  There will be no end to this stuff. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Johnny Q, Rich in PA

    Because Democrats don't do irresistible. They do unending disappointment and concession. They will take no for answer. Every time.

    Trust, but verify. - Reagan
    Vote, but Occupy. - commonmass

    When the rich have tripled their share of the income and wealth yet again, Republicans will still blame the poor and 3rd Way Democrats will still negotiate.

    by Words In Action on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 04:27:34 PM PDT

  •  Are the justices complete idiots? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BlackSheep1, misslegalbeagle

    Beyond the continuous lifelong humiliation of having been raped (because that never goes away completely and for some, not even a little), to have survived incest, which to me is a worse kind of child-abuse--it's all bad, don't get me wrong, but family members occupy an extra special level of trust for a child-relative, and an uncle at that which is to say, first degree relative.

    And then to have her images put online during a time when FB (and other sites will or do have facial recognition software).

    No matter where she goes, there she is. Her image could be tagged At some point, if it hadn't already, she could be identified directly with this material, even if she hadn't gone to court, and that would have simply been another layer to her pain.

    6 whole thousand dollars? Why so little for something so egregious? 6 Thousand dollars sounds like the reparations one might make for a moderate fender bender or a dog biting incident. But for rape and the spread of the recorded images of that rape that also involved a minor?

    Only 6 thousand bucks.
    Did the justices not think this was a legitimate rape?
    (note angry snark)

    Seriously WTF? This is going to hurt revenge porn cases in general too. Just wait and see. This has to be the worst Supreme Court ever in the history of our Supreme Court.

    Justice Sotomayor must be gritting her teeth in her sleep at night over some of these rulings as of late. There isn't even a pretense of fairness towards the average citizen lately.

    "It were a thousand times better for the land if all Witches, but especially the blessing Witch, might suffer death." qtd by Ehrenreich & English. For Her Own Good, Two Centuries of Expert's Advice to Women pp 40

    by GreenMother on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 05:56:02 PM PDT

    •  I don't think they're claiming that $6k is the... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sparhawk, Adam B, Susan G in MN

      ...actual value (sic) of the abuse; they don't contest the $3.4M overall figure.  They are, however, saying that it's arbitrary to make one person pay it all when that person wasn't exceptional as an abuser, but merely that he was caught.  This is the mirror image of the joke claim that it's unfair to prosecute someone for a crime where most offenders go unpunished; likewise it's unfair and something of a joke to say that the one we caught should pay for everyone who wasn't.

      It's not the side effects of the cocaine/I'm thinking that it must be love

      by Rich in PA on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 06:35:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't know about that. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Lonely Texan

        This isn't the average victimless crime here. This is the creation and distribution of child pornography. It is a record of a rape, which is just shy of a snuff film as far as I am concerned.

        Who is sicker? The one who makes said material or the one who buys it?

        Who does more damage to society? I am not sure there is a way to calculate that given the nature of the material and the crime, and it's effect on our society as a whole.

        "It were a thousand times better for the land if all Witches, but especially the blessing Witch, might suffer death." qtd by Ehrenreich & English. For Her Own Good, Two Centuries of Expert's Advice to Women pp 40

        by GreenMother on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 08:50:34 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  The $6k fine was not the issue before the court. (0+ / 0-)

      The uncle's case was settled over a decade ago.

      This is a separate case for the images that have circulated since and the people caught possessing them.

  •  Absolutely disgraceful SC decision....shocking (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BlackSheep1
  •  gonna call it (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lonely Texan

    a night now. Thank y'all for stopping in.

    LBJ, Van Cliburn, Ike, Wendy Davis, Lady Bird, Ann Richards, Barbara Jordan, Molly Ivins, Sully Sullenburger, Drew Brees: Texas is NO Bush League!

    by BlackSheep1 on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 09:40:54 PM PDT

  •  You really don't understand this decision. (0+ / 0-)

    Dammit Jim, I'm a lawyer, not a grammarian. So sue me.

    by Pi Li on Thu Apr 24, 2014 at 09:47:30 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site