| 6 Feb 10, 9:07 PM DaddysTouch UK(RG), 3 yrs  |
See above. This is not a logical legal position. If anybody who views an image of child pornography is liable for damages vis a vis the child(ren) in the images then, equally, anybody who reads a libelous claim in a newspaper, sees (in person or through CCTV/mobile phone/news footage) an assault/robbery/rape/murder etc, witnesses a colleague harass another, witnesses an embarrassing injury etc would be liable too. It's also essentially impossible to calculate such damages and, importantly, the plaintiff is unlikely to know that the images were viewed so no damages can be specifically attributed to the defendant who viewed them. The abuser can be held liable for the net damages because he knowingly created a situation where the plaintiff now knows images of her are, or are likely to be, in circulation. But a viewer of those images does not specifically inflict harm because he views them in secret. There is no malice (certainly none that can be proven), so any claim would depend on negligence. Presumably most defendants will have gone to lengths to ensure they are not caught (and thus the plaintiff never knows about the images being viewed), so negligence would be hard to argue. What men in all the world have shown such daring? |
