On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:39:31 GMT, Palindrome wrote:
>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.
So let me get this straight. The parent of a child purchases child
.ography, recognises a child, and this will prompt him to admit to
people that he has purchased child .ography?
No, Sue. People who purchase child .ography are not going to start
bragging about it just because one of the images contains a child they
recognise, nor will they want to invite a child protection
investigation of a local child by letting it out that the child is
being used to create .ography. There *is* a danger - that the
paedophile will be prompted to approach the child he has seen in the
.ography and get in on the act. But realistically such a risk is
extremely small, and is far outweighed by the probability that child
protection workers are more likely to find the child because of the
.ography than a paedophile will.
>Or, simply the suspicion by the child that the above has happened. Being
>convinced that they do know..
That will happen with or without any actual purchases, so is not an
example of how a purchase would increase the abuse.
>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...
As above. And in reality of course, the parent who has seen the
.ography has a bigger secret to keep than the victim (though I
agree that the victim may not see it that way).
>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.
But is does not appear that you have managed to explain any realistic
mechanism where more harm is caused than the taking of the photograph
and the *possibility* that it may be circulated. So you have made a
good argument why the creation of the .ography makes the abuse
worse - but that is something that I have always agreed.
Of course, the adults that such a child is likely to meet who have the
highest probability of having seen the images are those involved in
child protection.
And one case I saw that I thought was stupid of the authorities was
where a suitably pixillated image of a child involved in .ography
was shown on national (US) TV, with an appeal for anyone who
recognised the child to contact the authorities so that she could be
rescued from her abuser. Sounds OK on the surface - but if the child
saw the broadcast, she would have known that all her friends and
neighbours would now know what she had done. It could very well have
resulted in a suicide rather than the rescue of an abused child.
--
Cynic
|