New Frontiers in Child Porn Law

The major issue in the case of Amy is collecting restitution from subscribers or every single person who saw her pictures on the internet. Her pictures were viewed by many people and she does not want to track every person down for them to pay her for damages done. In the podcast they mentioned that the process could be painful for Amy and she was the victim so why should endure more pain by taking every person involved to court. None of the pornography online was by her doing.  Instead the court is suggesting that the defendant who had the photos, should be responsible for all the damages done from every person who also looked at her pictures. If the defendant needs help paying the restitution then he can look for all the other people who were involved online. New media has made it difficult to make concrete decisions about who is who and what is ethical on the internet. Also, how is it proven that all those people have made created loss or damage to Amy over the internet. When we spoke in class about copyright and how books or writings on the internet are not tangible and it is therefore harder to identify who is the owner of those writings. I think this issue in this case can relate to that because finding all these people who looked at her photos is difficult because they are not represented in a physical way, they too are in a way intangible. Although these people did not hurt Amy physically she has been hurt but the uncertainty of how exactly each person created harm  is another obstacle.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s