Re: Mary Marsh for the prosecution

["Schrade, Scott" <sschrade@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> People looking at these images once, through curiosity
> or otherwise, would be sick to the pit of their
> stomachs and be unable to view them ever again.
>
> They are images that stay with you. Anyone who decides
> to continue viewing must surely be enjoying what they
> see.


Does anyone else, besides me, have a problem with the above statements?
Obviously I'm not defending child porn, but these broad, sweeping state-
ments seem somewhat naive & close-minded.

Like, "I wouldn't be able to look twice at a picture of child porn so
*anyone* else who does *must* be *enjoying* the images."

What about the authorities who have to look twice?  Or the journalists?
Are *they* enjoying the images just because they weren't appalled enough
the first time around to force them not to want to look again?

Some people have a fascination with pictures of mutilation & death, too.
Websites charge money to view the pictures of Princess Diana's auto crash.
Are the people who look at such pictures *enjoying* them?  Or is it more
of a "morbid curiosity?"

And isn't it possible to have the same "morbid curiosity" to want to see
what actual child pornography looks like?


- SCHRADE in Akron