Great article, Shizzle, even if it's fairly old. I found this particularly interesting:
Unlike civilian child pornography law, military law does not require that the prosecution identify a real child victim. In the military, illegality of child pornography hinges on the good order and discipline of the military rather than victim-based harm, so there is no need to identify a victim before concluding that harm has occurred. This alternate conception provides an interesting foil to think about First Amendment concerns: in civilian law, the Supreme Court has held that to criminalize anything less than an image of a known child victim (whose identity can be verified), would not survive a balancing of the strong free speech interest.
I had no idea people couldn't be busted for CP unless the victim could be identified. All the more reason to "disappear" the kids.
Isn't it interesting that the questioning of "actual harm" is the main focus of the "Pedosexuals are normal" movement, as well as apparently the rule of law? The fact a kid is IN a porn flick, even if we don't know who it is or if they felt they were being harmed, should be enough to convict someone of sex crimes against kids if they bought the video.
view the rest of the comments →
Vindicator ago
Great article, Shizzle, even if it's fairly old. I found this particularly interesting:
I had no idea people couldn't be busted for CP unless the victim could be identified. All the more reason to "disappear" the kids.
shizzle_mcbobblehead ago
From what I'm gathering that's the biggest hump in prosecuting any violent crime, especially those involving kids.
Vindicator ago
Isn't it interesting that the questioning of "actual harm" is the main focus of the "Pedosexuals are normal" movement, as well as apparently the rule of law? The fact a kid is IN a porn flick, even if we don't know who it is or if they felt they were being harmed, should be enough to convict someone of sex crimes against kids if they bought the video.