19-year-old from Florida sentenced to 68 years

[Fragment]

https://www.narsol.org/2024/09/florida- ... r-choices/

The charge, following his arrest last year when he was 19, was 30 counts of possession of child pornography. The materials to which he entered an open plea are disturbing as the children involved were very young.

How long was Anthony sentenced for? The answer is shocking. His sentence is for 68 years in state prison, followed by lifetime sex offender probation. And of course, if he survives his prison time, of which 85% must be served, and gets out, he will have sex offender registration as well as sex offender probation.

Another perspective can be had with this. In hunting for the longest sentence given for a non-contact pornography conviction, the case of Stephen Chase, 58, also of Florida, stands out. Stephen, in 2014, created an illegal child pornography website on the dark web. Stephen himself is identified as “. . . creator and lead administrator of what was believed to be the world’s largest child pornography website—with more than 150,000 users around the world.” His conviction, in 2017, was for “. . . engaging in a child exploitation enterprise and multiple child pornography charges.” He was sentenced to 30 years.

The insanity has to stop.

I personally think that PIM involving 2-year-olds is pretty immoral. But to sentence someone to prison from 19 until they are 87 for mere possession. Who does this protect?

[Artaxerxes II]

Who does this protect?

No actual person. The blanket ban on PIM is part of a moral crusade to protect the societal image of the pure and innocent child, rather than protecting actual children. You'd think that, if antis were genuinely concerned, then they would merely stop at criminalising production of PIM that isn't self-produced, rather than go for criminalising possession too.

To prove how this is less about protecting people rather than is about protecting a specific image of children, you don't need to look farther than the antis' rationale for banning possession that essentially boils down to a metaphysical argument on how someone having or watching PIM will cause the "victim" to be "re-victimised" repeatedly which, if applied in any other context (pictures of murder, or people being humiliated, etc...), would be laughed out. But since it's about childhood innocence, all logic must be abandoned for the sake of preserving the mythical image of the innocent child.

[Outis]

There's no sanity to it, no consistancy. It's immoral and broken and it's just a shame that peoples lives get destroyed as a result.

[Fragment]

To prove how this is less about protecting people rather than is about protecting a specific image of children, you don't need to look farther than the antis' rationale for banning possession that essentially boils down to a metaphysical argument on how someone having or watching PIM will cause the "victim" to be "re-victimised" repeatedly which, if applied in any other context (pictures of murder, or people being humiliated, etc...), would be laughed out.

I wrote about this here:
https://forum.map-union.org/viewtopic.php?t=261

Even if we acknowledge there is harm in being victimized, it's not the same as becoming a victim of another act of abuse. Nor should it be treated as such.