Cynic wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 21:50:45 -0000, "Joe Lee"
> wrote:
>
>> Thank you, however I do believe that simple possession of the pictures /
>> images can, & in some circumstances will cause abuse or significant harm to
>> others.
>>
>> An example would be when a market in the images is created (as was the case
>> with Ore & I'm sure, others) The demand (as in any other market) needs to be
>> satisfied in order to keep the money coming in & that can only be done by
>> committing further acts of .ual abuse against that child or other
>> children.
>
> I am aware of that argument, and have stated many times why it is
> deficit. If the production of child abuse images is illegal (which I
> do not have a problem with), there cannot *be* the market you speak
> of, because it is always going to be trivial to trace the money back
> to the seller.
Even if that can always be done (and I doubt it) - fancy trying to
prosecute someone for such offences in Zimbabwe? Or Haiti? Or China?
Plus, how do they even detect the stuff being traded between
individuals, in "donate some to join" private groups?
There does seem to be a significant demand for illegal images, judging
by the numbers done for it. Where-ever there is a demand, there will be
someone making money from it.
> Ore is certainly *not* an example of a market that
> would increase the amount of child abuse, because no money went to the
> people who actually produced the material AFAIAA. Unless money gets
> to people who make the stuff, it does not provide the incentive to
> make more.
All it needs is the belief that there is money to be had, for people to
try to profit from it.
>
> The only cases I have heard of where children were .ually exploited
> to make money from the sale of kp were quickly traced, the
> perpetrators quite rightly convicted and AFAIK are still in prison.
>
And on that basis you have determined that no one, anywhere, is making
kp to sell?
--
Sue |