Hacker News Reader

> A child was once forced to masturbate in front of a camera by COURT ORDER. Police held them down. All because the child was a victim of child pornography and the court wanted a "comparison image" in a similar arousal state to prove it was a image of that child.

That summary is misleading and, I feel, wrong. It's not accurate to state that he was "a victim of child pornography," the complaint in this case was against him by the parent of another minor that he was "sexting" with.

That doesn't excuse the police behavior here, but you're attempting to paint a picture where the victims in these cases are outright ignored in a misguided search for justice. You're twisting this case[1] to fit your narrative, I think.

Further, he sued the government and won. The courts made it perfectly clear, the lower courts and police were absolutely in violation of this teens rights when it granted and executed this search warrant. So egregiously that "qualified immunity" doesn't even apply to the officers estate.

I wasn't going to address this, but..

> Therefore CP laws very quickly stopped being about protecting the children and more about punishing the pedophiles.

Pedophiles create a market through demand. Often it is also pedophiles that are on the supply side of this market, but not always. Merely participating in the demand side implicates you in these crimes against children as you are suborning their abuse. One could say that our system merely recognizes this fact.

[1]: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/12/forcing-kid-to-m...

> Merely participating in the demand side implicates you in these crimes against children as you are suborning their abuse.

So if someone participates in say P2P sharing of a CP video with some background copyrighted music, she can be simultaneously guilty of:

1. Suborning the creation of the CP by participating in the demand side.

2. Undermining the creation of music by distributing it for free.

Something inside me says there is something wrong here.

I think HN would say 2 is wrong here—people often argue that piracy actually helps sales as it promotes the media. if that is accepted, then the court would be correct in asserting 1.

> In the us, there is an unspoken belief that preventing criminals from ""winning"" is more important than protecting citizens.

It's sad you are downvoted for this, because it sums up the American mentality perfectly. Some people really can't handle the truth.

This is a tall pile of claims without citations.