Cynic wrote:
> 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?
Of course not. He will never give that reason for behaving differently
to the child and demanding that his children behave differently. Then a
few invented reasons why.
>
> 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.
No need to brag. It would start with forbidding your children from
playing with the child in question.
> 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.
Only if the circulation of kp and its possession is kept illegal. The
numbers prosecuted to date can only be a tiny tip of the iceberg of
demand, should it be made legal.
>
>> 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.
If it was made available to purchase, legally, more would be in people's
homes. There are many people that won't download from the internet, or
visit dubious sites, because of the risk of trojans, viruses, etc. Many
of those would buy kp, if it was available for sale.
>
>> 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).
Oh, he wouldn't give /that/ reason for the son/daughter to keep away.
>
>> 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.
>
How? Will they be going around schools looking for people that they have
seen on film? The chances of having a child protection officer as a
neighbour are much lower than having someone with an interest in kp, I
would imagine.
> 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.
>
Yep. The circulation of images of children being abused can be very
damaging. I am glad that you agree.
--
Sue |