Posted by skyfox
on Thu 4 Feb 10, 2:40 PM to skyfox's blog.
The New York Times reports that a victim of child pornography (she was the child in the pictures) is suing those caught with her pictures for damages until she gets $3.4 million. Apparently she was awarded $170,000 last year by the courts. Is this a good precedent or not?
This type of lawsuit is popular among injuries (no win, no fee), and even among sexual abuse (a la the Catholic church), but this is the first time it's been applied to the people who possess the image, rather than those that created it.
On the one hand, this amuses me, because if Metallica can sue people who illegally downloaded copies of their songs, why can't she sue people who downloaded her image, knowing full well of the legal issues involved? Most models are paid for their work; I doubt most child porn "models" are paid. Why shouldn't they get some restitution?
On the other hand, I worry that this is almost accomodating child porn. "How much does that picture cost? Well, it'll be $100 now and $15,000 to the boy in the picture in five years." Are people going to see this as a money-making exercise similar to those freaks that throw themselves in front of cars in order to sue the driver? Will poor parents see this as a way of making money off their little darling? Or will some canny 12 or 13-year-old consider this a long-term financial investment rather than abuse? Will people argue that it's cheaper to legalise the images?
Fair or dangerous?
| 4 Feb 10, 3:25 PM FairyGirl UK(YO), 3 yrs    |
I would argue alright to a point, but not something that should be encouraged! "Nothing saves anyone's life, Sir. It just postpones their death." - Posner , The History Boys. | |||
| 4 Feb 10, 3:40 PM mini_velvet UK(EH), 6 yrs |
No amount of money in the world is enough to adequately compensate what she has to live with. | |||
| 4 Feb 10, 5:00 PM skyfox UK(EH), 5 yrs  |
Especially when you consider that she's reminded everytime the FBI sends a letter saying that they've found another one of her pictures. However, economists can count anything: $3.4million is from "counseling, loss of wages and lawyer fees". The only thing we have to fear is fear itself. | |||
| 4 Feb 10, 11:02 PM DaddysTouch UK(RG), 3 yrs |
No. People who find pictures of her online (or what not) didn't abuse her, she has no grounds for damages from them. The person who abused her, sure, come up with a big number and that's probably reasonable. What men in all the world have shown such daring? | |||
| 5 Feb 10, 12:21 AM Eternallee 3 yrs |
Maybe they didn't abuse her physically, but they are looking at the pictures and gaining sexual gratification from it. They are looking at the, pictures with a view to seeing abuse and possibly pre-emptive to abusing someone. If they are punished harshly for looking they might never reach the touching. I think there should be a limit set, but she should get something from them. I mean, you are aware that people pay to have certain children abused and photographed? How do you know her abuse wasn't set up that way? AND if they were constructive in her abuse, as all viewers of child porn are, then they should suffer consequences. | |||
| 5 Feb 10, 2:13 AM DaddysTouch UK(RG), 3 yrs |
That's nothing to do with damages to her. Making something a criminal offence in law (as possession of child pornography is) because it might lead to bad things is not the same as awarding damages to a plaintiff in civil court.
If a person had paid to have a child abused then I would agree they are liable. But that is not the case here, the OP described a situation where anyone in possession of the images would be liable. Obviously not all of these people instigated the girl's abuse. Those that are liable should be held as such, those that are not... should not. What men in all the world have shown such daring? | |||
| 5 Feb 10, 9:37 AM Mabesque UK(LS), 4 yrs |
This. And @DaddysTouch - yes, they are abusing her by looking at the pictures without her consent. You can't change the direction of the wind, but you can adjust your sails. | |||
| 5 Feb 10, 3:47 PM DaddysTouch UK(RG), 3 yrs |
No they're not. Making a libelous allegation makes you liable for damages. Reading a libelous allegation does not, even if you know it's libel. Video taping your friend beating up a tramp might make you liable. Possessing a copy of the tape does not. What men in all the world have shown such daring? | |||
| 6 Feb 10, 5:25 PM mini_velvet UK(EH), 6 yrs |
Every time an image of child abuse is viewed it is adding to the victims abuse. | |||
| 6 Feb 10, 6:16 PM Badg1Vo UK(B), 6 yrs  |
How does an 'innocent' / 'set-up' user know what it is until they open the picture / file if it isn't labelled as such?. There are suggestions that the banker recently seen (in the background of an Australian TV broadcast) while viewing an image of a lingerie model may have been set-up ... Is it adding to the abuse if a law enforcement officer views the image?. Does it then make a difference if the subject of the image is made aware of this, or left in ignorance of the fact it has been seen?. Badg1.
Edited 6 Feb 10, 6:17 PM by Badg1Vo |
