[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [none]

Joe, re

> > I don't endorse the *demand*, *delivery* or *production*
> > side of the child pornography business, and I am
> > certainly against the abuse of children.   The idea
> > that someone can be arrested and charged for looking at
> > something (peeping Toms excluded) is very odd.

But isn't that what paying - and I stress paying - to access web sites - is
exactly the equivalent of? Being a peeping tom?

I think the central point that the author and others in that field have is
that once child porn is available at a price on the net, the acts of abuse
to generate the porn are facilitated by the financial support the "viewers"
give it.