On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 4:25 PM, Charlotte Webb
<charlottethewebb(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
On 12/8/08, DESLIPPE, MICHAEL CIV DCMA CIV DFAS
<MICHAEL.DESLIPPE(a)dfas.mil> wrote:
So, certain laws apply without regard to things
not in control of the
victim.
In this case, a minor child was exploited for
money. Someone should
have protected the child from such a consequence as this.
You can call it "bad parenting" for sure, but painting any of it as
"child porn" would only cheapen the term and hurl a belittling insult
at actual victims exploited for actual child porn.
Sorry, I disagree with you there. Yes, there are worse abuses of children
out there, but that fact doesn't in itself exclude this image from the
definition of "child porn".
The first amendment of the U.S. constitution guarantees freedom of
speech and of the press, and exceptions are not made on a whim. Yes,
certain forms of pornography are prohibited, but the underlying moral
basis for this isn't that you and I and most other people find them
offensive/distasteful, rather because they are presumed to be
exploiting the victim of a sex crime.
Promoting a sexual performance by a child is a sex crime, and as defined
generally includes the promotion of lewd exhibitionism.