"Cynic" wrote in message
news:ashnu3tg60f2d6kl74a6dpnu5lvuilfqt4@4ax.com...
> 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.
Yes I agree. I also think there is a real danger that some of those who
possess & collect images of child .ual abuse will want to "get in on the
act" as you put it. Another excellent reason for why the possession of such
images is criminalised.
> 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.
Yes that does sound like a high-risk strategy & points up the difficulty
that law enforcement must face in trying to infiltrate those who share the
images & eventually prevent further acts of abuse.
--
Joe Lee
|