>Should the law take this into account... Definitely not. Doing so is to much of a slippery slope when extended to drugs/alcohol or anything else that has the

>Should the law take this into account... Definitely not. Doing so is to much of a slippery slope when extended to drugs/alcohol or anything else that has the effect of lowering inhibitions or increasing the likeliness of committing a crime where one might otherwise not. That said I agree with your point there is a blurring of the line. Whereas in your example, one would have to actively go to someones private property and peep through a window until they caught what they were looking for, versus the internet where a picture practically comes to you, your only act is clicking (tptacek touched on this...maybe could be termed "lowering the barrier to criminal behavior"). So while the victim impact is the same as you say (I might even argue online is worse because there is greater/continued victimization), the acts are different in nature. Blurring the line further is that culturally the internet pictures are normalized in the sense that they are practically marketed via traditional news, social media and late night comedians as things to see rather than condemned as acts of victimization.