If I may summarise it seems that the thrust of the argument in favour of decriminalising CP centres around the fact that the victim may be ignorant that firstly they are being filmed and that others are taking pleasure at their abuse.We have also discussed and agreed it is (theoretically!) possible to download images and videos in such a way that the uploader doesn't know how many times they have been viewed - although the fact that this doesn't seem to be the way this works in practice should say something about it.I think I would ask all of you to consider though the fact firstly that the person in question is taking pleasure at seeing an innocent person being harmed - this is what in itself makes child pornography unethical to me, though I accept a paedophile doesn't need to view CP in order to find these kind of thoughts pleasurable. The fact once again that paedophiles DO in fact view CP rather than solely fantasising should tell us something in my humble opinion.Secondly, a child does not need to be aware that a specific person has viewed images or videos of them to become distressed. It would be enough to know that images/videos of them have been recorded and potentially shared on the internet. I have been doing some (extremely!) cautious googling and managed to find a story of a girl who has been abused and filmed in secret by her own father:http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008928541_webfreeman26m.htmlWhen she found that the videos of her father molesting her were widely distributed on the internet she found this very distressing:"Those images have become one of the most prolific child porn series, downloaded by countless people around the world. Kylie said she goes "ice cold" every times she thinks about what they're doing."They're dangerous and, even though I don't know them, they're continuing to hurt me," she said."I do appreciate that her awareness of people downloading videos of her is vicarious and she may not know each specific time that a certain person has viewed her being abused but that does not absolve said paedophile from their responsibility not to view such material!V.Quote from: CITVVTIC on June 18, 2012, 10:37 amQuote from: kmfkewm on June 18, 2012, 06:54 amI have no duty to prevent others from viewing images of anything. What if someone has a picture of them with a double chin leak out to the internet? Should we have task force for tracking down the people who view it? Should we send them to jail? By your logic it is just as bad to look at an embarrassing photograph of a celebrity that some paparazzi took, as it is to look at CP. I guess we should arrest everyone who reads tabloids and give them sentences equal to the sentences people receive for viewing CP? Anyway I think molestation is bad even if the victim does not remember. They are obviously not able to consent to having sex. However, there is ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE that they will remember someone anonymously viewing their picture! There is a difference between looking at a photograph of the holocaust and being a war criminal! Well I agree that there is a difference between looking at a photograph of the holocaust and being a war criminal. I also don't think we should have a task force for tracking down the people who view unflattering pictures, or that people should receive the same sentences for viewing those sorts of images as they do for viewing CP. But I think I do find that kind of tabloid journalism disgusting, and the leering consumers disgusting. But my levels of disgust are much higher when it comes to people taking the same attitudes towards CP. So by my logic, yes, I think it is the same sort of thing that is going on. I guess I believe people have a right to their image. So I see it as the same right being violated. But I don't think that necessitates equal punishment, or means that there is not greater urgency to tackle CP before tabloids. Or that I would even bother to attempt to tackle tabloids - I think that they are bad, but not really enough to move me to action - probably a moral failing on my part, but there is only so much stuff I can give a crap about before I end up being a gibbering tweaky mess, which doesn't really help anyone.I think I agree with you that there is no such thing as "re-victimization", but I see the people deriving pleasure from CP images as profiting from the act in the images, and think that should be punished. I guess when I think of someone looking at an image of the holocaust I don't imagine them to be taking pleasure in it, whereas my understanding is that this is the reason people look at CP. And I guess it's this that I find abhorrent. So I know there is no chance that the victim will know about the person viewing the picture, but it's not the harm to the victim I'm concerned about in this case, it's the gains to the person viewing the image.I'm tempted to say that viewing CP is a victimless crime, but still a crime that ought to be punished. It seems to me like a crime against humanity, rather than against particular human beings. But as that sounds to me quasi-religious and ever so slightly insane, I guess it is the storage and distribution I am most concerned with. And the nature of images is that they must be stored somewhere to be viewed, so I guess this is the crime I see the person committing when they view the image. Perhaps if you look over the shoulder of a person viewing CP on their computer you are not committing a crime. Though I think you then have a duty to punish them for having the image on their computer, and if you don't you have committed some kind of moral failing.Perhaps the difference between the holocaust images and the CP images is that I feel like it is important that images of the holocaust are viewed, because of the historical nature of the event - seeing the outcomes of fascism is an important lesson I think. Seeing the outcomes of an individual's sexual perversions is perhaps a lesson I don't think that needs to be learned. I guess that would be the standard response. But maybe more importantly the CP image does not show the outcomes of the act; it doesn't show the psychological damage to the child. There is no way to capture that in an image. Whereas with holocaust images we see the death which was the outcome of the Nazi ideology. Maybe there is a certain kind of truth that can be seen in images of the holocaust that I don't think can be fully captured in CP images because of the differences between the nature of crimes that are documented in them. And then also there is this feeling I have the victims of the holocaust would want us to see the images, whereas the victims of pedophiles I imagine would not want us to view the images. So I guess with the holocaust images I assume consent, and with CP I do not. Which is maybe not an assumption I am entitled to. But it's one I make in the absence of further information.