[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Mary Marsh for the prosecution
> 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