4 ms·
Really? The reason she was napalmed was to create that photo? You're sticking with that?
by Tech-Noir 9y ago
Really? The reason she was napalmed was to create that photo? You're sticking with that?
- dTal 9y agoI'll allow that I exploited an ambiguity in the wording to make a point. The girl was not napalmed in order to create the photo, but existence of the photo did depend on her being napalmed. Either is a valid interpretation of the wording. I don't think it invalidates the point, though. I'm pretty sure that provenance is irrelevant to child pornography possession - underage selfies and telephoto nude beach shots count even though no abuse took place. Conversely, photos of terrible things being done to children are legal provided they are not of a sexual nature. It seems to me that the true crime being punished is a thought crime: the crime of sexual arousal from inappropriate things. Thought experiment: consider if you found a Polaroid of a child being abused in the street. What would the state response be, assuming it found out, if you: a) left it there b) picked it up and put it in the bin c) took it home, intending to report it to the police, but forgetting about it d) took it home, intending to masturbate over it, but forgetting about it e) as d, but following through
- JohnBooty 9y agoUnrelated to this discussion, but my favorite piece of unexpected good news was discovering that the girl in the picture healed and has gone on to live what appears to be a happily normal life! I'd always seen that photo and figured that she was yet another person lost to war... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phan_Thi_Kim_Phuc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phan_Thi_Kim_Phuc