[no subject]

[Joe Lewinski <lewinski@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Scott wrote:

> But isn't looking at (and paying for) internet child porn helping to
perpetuate the problem, ever so slightly?  I have to admit, I see his
point.  But perhaps it is a bit of an overstatement.  How does one
eradicate the problem without knowing the specifics of it?


He is mixing personal freedoms, voyeurism, & human
curiosity together to represent the *demand* side
of the child-pornography business.    I not familiar
with the law in this area, but there are many laws
that target the demand side (illegal drugs for one).
The demand side in this case, is *not* performing the
abuse no matter how you slice it.    Their desire
to view the material (for many reasons) does not link
them to the abuse as such.   Just as we are not linked
to the beating of Rodney King whether we viewed the
video of his beating on the news, or taped it and
view it each day as a way to get off.

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.

Joe in Philly