Or do you disagree that the legal foundation for making the act of viewing/possession (not making or distributing) Child Porn is based in the idea that simply having the child porn is re-victimizing the child depicted
Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103, 111
"the sentencing judge, who
stated “it is a clear reality . . . that every time one of
these web sites is opened and every time
one of these images is viewed, additional harm is visited upon the victim. "
That seems combative. Were I to say it, I'd try to source it.
But I would be interested to hear a knowledgeable opinion on whether the "viewing is new harm to the victim" argument is often employed against producers and distributors, rather than consumers. The argument that distribution makes a market for producers to satisfy would seem much stronger here.
>>>The court quoted academic research, which concluded that “Because the child's actions are reduced to a recording, the pornography may haunt him in future years, long after the original misdeed took place.”
---
United States v. Blinkensop, 606 F.3d
1110, 1117 (9th Cir. 2010) (affirming the sentencing judge, who stated)
>>> “it is a clear reality . . . that every time one of these web sites is opened and every time one of these images is viewed, additional harm is visited upon the victim.
-----
FBI and DOJ routinely state the same in Sentencing, victim impact, and other official court and prosecution documents and activities
The idea that simply viewing child porn victimizes the child, is infact the legal foundation for its prohibition
