3 ms·
Sorry, I should have been clearer. If you accept the idea that a child is re-victimized by the viewing of child pornography (which, as I understand it, is one o
by 75j 10y ago
Sorry, I should have been clearer. If you accept the idea that a child is re-victimized by the viewing of child pornography (which, as I understand it, is one of the justifications for the criminalization of viewing child pornography), then I don't see how what the FBI did can be considered acceptable.
- Blahah 10y agoI agree with your logic except the last clause. The FBI are presumably trying to minimise the overall perceived harm caused by the viewing of child pornography, and have judged that enabling some viewing initially will help prevent a greater amount of future viewing.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- 75j 10y agoTrue, but 1) I question heavily whether this operation will actually prevent a greater amount of future viewing, and 2) would anybody accept that sort of means-justify-ends approach in the context of my initial analogy of continuing to operate a child prostitution ring?
- unclenoriega 10y ago1) Seems like a fair question, but 2) just seems like a completely unfair analogy. Perhaps it's own lack of imagination, but I can't see how someone viewing an image is equivalent to someone having sex with a child prostitute. Is this really the argument? To answer your question, no, I don't think anyone would accept that.