Use Edwards scandal to draw attention to lack of evidence for claim that consumers of CSAM contribute to CSA

[PorcelainLark]

This talking point is the justification for a lot of outrage about MAPs. Frequently people claim that those guilty of consuming CSAM are contributing to CSA by purchasing it, thereby creating a market and a financial incentive to abuse children.
All you need to do is, when it's brought up (e.g. on Reddit, Twitter, Youtube, etc.), ask people for their source. They won't be able to find sources. You don't need to labor the point, it's enough for people to just see that they can't provide evidence for this claim.

[Fragment]

Huw was actually a rare case where he did pay, but that does not seem typical.

You can also just link to this.
https://www.iwf.org.uk/annual-report-20 ... sex-abuse/

92% of 7-10 year old PIM is self-generated (64% is category C).
96% of 11-13 year old PIM is self-generated (51% is category C).
88% of 14-15 year old PIM is self-generated (39% is category C).
81% of 16-17 year old PIM is self-generated (62% is category C).

Category A: number of images showing sexual activity between adults and children including rape or sexual torture including self-penetration.
Category B: number of images involving non-penetrative sexual activity.
Category C: number of indecent images of children not falling within category A or B.

If it's such a big industry then where are all the kids raking in the big bucks with their self generated images? Most producers are minors so they should be the ones getting all the profit. Either that or it's not actually the "market" that everyone thinks it is.

Minors sending nudes and then those nudes being leaked to other people is not ideal. Their privacy is being violated by whoever leaks the images. But that is also not what most people imagine when they hear of Child Porn. They are imagining rape by an adult being captured on video. But things like Daisy's Destruction are newsworthy because they are rare.

Considering stopping the spread of PIM seems basically impossible, I wonder if it's time to look at a harm reduction, rather than prevention approach. A report from 1996 says this about the Netherlands:

The maximum penalty for child pornography was raised from 3 months' to 4 years' imprisonment, 6 years in the event of financial gain, and the maximum fine was more than tripled. New legislation allows for provisional arrest, house searches, and criminal financial investigations. Moreover, the authorities will no longer have to prove that a person possesses child pornography for the purpose of distribution or public display. The possession of pictures of sexual behavior with minors alone will be sufficient cause for prosecution.

I wonder if these changes actually resulted in anything improving or if it's just addition punishment for those who sin.

[BLueRibbon]

The Huw Edwards case is useful in many ways.

I assume you read our article on the matter?

https://www.map-union.org/blog/mu-analy ... ar-on-pim1

[PorcelainLark]

The Huw Edwards case is useful in many ways.

I assume you read our article on the matter?

https://www.map-union.org/blog/mu-analy ... ar-on-pim1

I have, just reading the Reddit thread and listening to James O'Brien in particular made me feel like hammering home the lack of evidence for this claim. People are getting angry about something which might not even be true, and I think drawing attention to that is something that even more reasonable antis could be persuaded of. If I'd have known when O'Brien was covering the Huw Edwards sentencing on LBC, I might have texted in (maybe using one of those fake numbers). I genuinely think there was a good chance he would have listened.
It fits with my broader vision of connecting MAP interests with fighting disinformation.

[BLueRibbon]

The Huw Edwards case is useful in many ways.

I assume you read our article on the matter?

https://www.map-union.org/blog/mu-analy ... ar-on-pim1

I have, just reading the Reddit thread and listening to James O'Brien in particular made me feel like hammering home the lack of evidence for this claim. People are getting angry about something which might not even be true, and I think drawing attention to that is something that even more reasonable antis could be persuaded of. If I'd have known when O'Brien was covering the Huw Edwards sentencing on LBC, I might have texted in (maybe using one of those fake numbers). I genuinely think there was a good chance he would have listened.
It fits with my broader vision of connecting MAP interests with fighting disinformation.

We really need help getting our articles, and their key points, out among the public. I went crazy writing that article. It took a ton of work. I would be grateful if others could help with promoting it.