Very good analysis, Misty!

You did as good as I could have done with an analysis of that article, and with far fewer words, too! I am humbled!

And yes, arresting people for looking at pictures, and saying that those who do so are guilty of "abuse," is outright ridiculous, and I fully agree with your statements that if it causes distress to the now grown woman called Amy when she is reminded of someone else being found with those pics by the government, then those fools should STOP reminding her. Plain and simple. And the idea of suing people who view these pics by the now grown individuals who appeared in those pics is, as you said, nothing more than a new scheme by lawyers to make a killing off of an emotionally charged issue that few will have the nerve to defend, and it's not concern for the victim that motivates this new trend, but simple avarice.

However, as the article made clear, this situation is slowly changing as lawmakers and judges--not to mention the public--are now beginning to become aware of how draconian and outright ridiculous it is in a supposedly democratic nation to throw people in jail and/or sue the hell out of them simply for looking at pictures. The fact that the knowledge of people looking at pics causes emotional distress to a person who appeared in them is no reason to convict people simply for looking at these pics. If Amy was truly forced into taking those pics by her uncle, then HE alone should be convicted for both producing and distributing those pics, and I have no problem with Amy taking HIM to civil court and suing his ass for damages due to causing her severe emotional distress. But convicting people who simply viewed and/or downloaded the pics who had NO IDEA in hell who the girl even was? It's outright silly and downright Orwellian. Amy's uncle alone should be culpable for conviction in both criminal and civil court in this situation.

And that one so-called expert in sex crimes said that it's "hard to be too sympathetic" to people who simply possess images containing CP? You would think that possessing images of adults who were murdered by serial killers or executed by terrorists would cause more consternation in people like the dude who made that quote than viewing pics of naked kids or kids engaged in sexual activities, since it could easily be argued that the continued circulation of pics containing real depictions of murder would cause great emotional stress to the families of those victims. Yet even if we may shake our heads and roll our eyes at people who collect such pics, almost ALWAYS are they protected by laws against censorship in these cases. Though I truly feel a lot of sorrow for Amy if she was truly forced against her will to participate in taking such pics by her uncle while she was a child, I must risk being called "insensitive" by calling it like I see it by pointing out that what she is doing now is clearly some exploiting of her own by taking advantage of the current sex abuse hysteria and the disproportionate degree of sympathy that victims of such crimes are afforded by the public over and above ALL other crimes, including murder and war crimes, even though the idea that victims of even genuine sexual abuse regularly become "damaged goods" for life has been readily debunked, and by individuals who are in no way sympathetic to MAAs or people who look at pics of nude kids, let alone situational offenders who commit the lion's share of actual coerced sexual acts against kids.

Oh,and btw, I can't help but ask you the obvious question, because I am VERY curious about it...was the fact that this woman was called "Misty" in the picture series taken of her as a child, a nickname that has also been given to you by me and which has since caught on with other people on this board, possibly one of the factors that made this particular story stand out to you? You have to admit, it was an interesting coincidence!