On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 4:25 PM, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.comwrote:
On 12/8/08, DESLIPPE, MICHAEL CIV DCMA CIV DFAS MICHAEL.DESLIPPE@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.