Cynic wrote:
> You will also have to explain how you believe that a
> child is further abused because an existing image is sold. I do know
> that is a claim made by those in the enforcement and child protection
> industries, but it is so obviously ridiculous that I do not understand
> how anyone can fall for it.
Not that one again! The obvious example is where the parents of other
children at the same school purchase the images and recognise the child.
And other children at the school get to find out.
Or, simply the suspicion by the child that the above has happened. Being
convinced that they do know..
Oh, and later, thinking that you are being treated strangely when taken
to "meet the parents". Has he seen the videos and pictures too? Has he
recognised me? Will he tell the son? He is bound to warn him off...
It is so obvious that there is a possibility that a child can be further
harmed by existing images being sold, I wonder how anyone couldn't
accept it.
Luckily, at the moment, there are strong laws that make it less likely
that such images are bought and sold and circulated - or even searched out.
--
Sue
|