On Mon, May 28, 2001 at 01:59:19PM +0900, Sam Joseph wrote:
> > crime is the rape, not the photograph. Of course, the photograph may
> > serve as a reminder of the rape, but it is the rape that has and is
> > continuing to hurt you. There is do direct causal link between one
> > person transferring the photograph to another who wishes to receive
> it,
> > and your hurt.
>
> I disagree. Who are you to say that me knowing that other people are
> deriving pleasure from my suffering doesn't add more hurt and pain on
> top of the experience of the rape itself?
If I was horribly mauled by a dog when I was younger, and was therefore
terrified of dogs, and my neighbour got a dog - which meant that I
couldn't sleep at night, do I have the *right* to demand that my
neighbour get rid of his new pet? Of course not. It is not the fact
that my neighbour has a dog that really causes me pain, but the fact
that I had previously been traumatised by a dog,�a fact that dogs
remind me of. Now, there is, of course, a huge difference between
trading child pornography and owning a dog, but for the purposes of this
debate, the analogy holds.
> Are you saying that I shouldn't have the right to not have images of
> myself suffering distributed? If you are that's fine. I just want to
> know your position on the matter.
I believe that you should have the right not to have the suffering
inflicted in the first place, but I do not think you have the right to
ban anything that reminds you of that suffering.
> > In that case, it is obtaining the images that is wrong, not their
> distribution.
>
> Really. You're telling me that if I distribute images of a married
> person having an affair in an attempt to destroy his marriage, family,
> status in the community, then the people who support their distribution
> have no blame or responsibility in the matter?
This is perfectly legal, and happens all the time. We are talking, not
about what is right, but what people have a right to prevent. For
example, not confessing to a crime you have committed is wrong, but it
doesn't give the police the right to force you to confess.
> I might obtain such
> images and not distribute them. Undistributed they would do no harm, so
> how can obtaining the images be wrong if just by doing that I have not
> caused any harm.
Ah, so you think that taking pictures of a child being sexually abused
is ok provided they are not distributed? Wow.
Ian.
PGP signature
