Allocating Liability for Child Pornography, in Full or Fractional Shares

WASHINGTON — The notices arrive almost every day. They tell a young woman named Amy, as she is called in court papers, that someone has been charged with possessing child pornography. She was the child.

“It is hard to describe what it feels like to know that at any moment, anywhere, someone is looking at pictures of me as a little girl being abused by my uncle and is getting some kind of sick enjoyment from it,” Amy, then 19, wrote in a 2008 victim impact statement. “It’s like I am being abused over and over and over again.” Full Article

Related posts

Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...


  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  19. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

What has happened to Amy is truly terrible, but justice isn’t being served by forcing a man who viewed what happened to bear the total cost of Amy’s expenses. Law enforcement needs to devote their resources upon stopping any further distribution of pornographic images of Amy. It is the distribution that is causing additional harm to Amy and others like her who have been harmed.

After reading the article I cant help but to feel that “AMY” will never be able to put this behind her and get on with her life as long as she allows herself to be used by the courts in this way. She, in all likelihood will come to rely on people being forced to “give” her money, that is if she hasn’t already become dependent on this. The article also makes me wonder why not very many other “crimes” require payment from the defendant. After reading about the Roman Polanski case I have to wonder just how many of these “victims” actually consider themselves victims before the courts and police get hold of them.

The “victim” in the Polanski case said ” It wasn’t Roman who made my life miserable. It was the people who treated him unfairly at the time and now had him arrested in Switzerland. And — nothing against you — the press made my life miserable. Roman didn’t intend for any of that.”

She went on to say “At any rate, I was never as devastated and traumatized as people claimed I was. What I still don’t understand is that if everyone felt that what Roman did was so terrible, why do they still want to see me as a deeply traumatized victim? Oh, Polanski did this to you — but why, then, aren’t you in worse shape?”

This part is very telling about what is really going on. ” I’m also a feminist. I understand the motives of the women who attacked me publicly. But they wanted me to feel like a victim, because only a deeply hurt victim could truly benefit them and their cause. But I wasn’t one. To this day, I don’t feel that I was a victim of Roman, but rather a victim of the public, the courts and the media.”

This really makes me wonder; just who is REALLY victimizing Amy when ever someone gets arrested for looking at one of her pictures?

I think this is a very interesting issue from the standpoint of damages. There are two categories of damages: economic and non-economic. Economic damages are actual, verifiable damages that you can calculate. Non-economic damages are punitive damages and other such things that are far more difficult to calculate.

In this case, if I am reading this correctly, all of the $3.4 million in damages are economic damages which include the costs of attorneys and a lifetime of therapy. I don’t know about the laws in other states, but in California, the economic damages are apportioned under “joint and several” which means that once the amount of the damages are calculated, all of the guilty parties are subject to any or all of it. Regarding non-economic damages, the guilty parties are subject to the proportion corresponding to their proportion of guilt.

So none of the damages are punitive in nature–all of them are the actual costs that the victim will incur as a result of the crimes against her. For those professionals in this field, does that sound about right? Are those real numbers?

This young woman can opt out of notification. Then she won’t have to feel like she is being abused over and over again.
Seems like the uncle who was the actual abuser got off pretty easy.

These “notifications” are nonsense. What a way to keep the victim-hood going. It is also nonsense to give victims money from people who have done no more than view the photos or videos of the abuse.

If it were not nonsense, then anyone viewing a video of me being illegally beaten by law enforcement would be obligated to give me money. It’s ridiculous.

As another example, why is it not even illegal to watch a video of someone committing the crime of murdering someone? And surely the victim in that case should be paid by all viewers.

Forcing viewers of sexual abuse to compensate the victim is just more of the Sex Offender Witch Hunt. Sex is the only reason people dream it is legitimate. Or am I really missing something?

There are two important areas of consideration here,in my opinion. One is that there is no way of telling what is in the mind of someone, who views an image. the best illustration of that is the fact that authorities, tasked with the job, view these images thousands of times over, as they gather evidence to prosecute. what culpability do they have? Are they presumed to be looking at these images clinically, and if so, that is a big assumption. Also, according to recent research, and studies which have been submitted to the DOJ, and Federal Sentencing Commission with regard to the need to revisit the overly harsh sentences, on the federal level, for cp viewers, they have found that there are many reasons that people, who possess these images, view them. Sometimes, for instance, some do it out of curiosity. Some viewers are interested, due to the socially taboo aspect of the subject matter. Some viewers are victims of having the material planted on their pc, and they truly have no interest in the subject. Also, to be considered is that many viewers really have no idea what to expect, when they open a file, since titles can be misleading, and some files have no titles. Until science, and technology can devise a way that makes evident the intent of a person upon viewing these images, basing any kind of restitution fines to be given to the victim is ludicrous. The second problem is that while I personally understand that there is a need to address the exploitation of the victim, it is hard for me to believe Amy’s contention that when she walks down the street, and sees a man, she doesn’t know if he viewed her image, as a child, and she is further victimized. That is quite a bit of a stretch involving her imagination. She would no longer be recognizable, having grown to maturity, and a mentally healthy victim should be able to move on from thinking those kinds of thoughts. I don’t see that she is further exploited, by this kind of awareness. Her uncle, as the producer, is the most identifiable perpetrator in the horrifc exploitation she suffered, and it is he who should bear the predominant responsibility.