"Furthermore, even in the brutal-rape case, the child is not harmed when a third party makes copies of the video."
What about the privacy rights of the victim? The argument could easily be made that a child can be traumatized all over again when finding out years later a recording of their abuse is spread far and wide on the internet and they have no chance of ever curtailing it.
Whether it's feasible to prevent that (as with any other information) is another question, but copying images of child abuse doesn't seem that victimless a crime to me.
True. You just have to imagine yourself in that situation to see how unbearable it is. Even censor doesn't stop people from getting their hands on the material.
Quote :
That leaves Kylie feeling ice cold every time she thinks about the "sick" people who take pleasure out of watching her "body being ravaged and raped."
"Those images are out there forever," Kylie, now 19, said at her father's sentencing. "We can never erase what Ken has done."
The world is full of disgusting people that disturb us. Rape victims aren't exactly alone in that. If Kylie's more concerned about fappers than Ken raping her again, then I'm kinda confused.
What about the privacy rights of the victim? The argument could easily be made that a child can be traumatized all over again when finding out years later a recording of their abuse is spread far and wide on the internet and they have no chance of ever curtailing it. Whether it's feasible to prevent that (as with any other information) is another question, but copying images of child abuse doesn't seem that victimless a crime to me.
reply