You've got to be kidding.

Her opening salvo includes the gem, "While there is little serious debate over the harm ( CP ) producers and distributors inflict on children, this view does not always extend to possessors of images."

Erm. To even argue in a law journal that possession and distribution are different when they they are invariably linked borders on the specious. So long as sexting is CP, and the producer, distributor, possessor and victim are the same by design; her distinction is false.

Further she just accepts that viewing exacerbates this differently from other depictions of crimes without stating how it is. Why should age or the nature of the assault make images of a sexually abused adult or a non-sexually abused child entirely different in how the image impacts. She merely parrots their claims without offering any arguments for the exceptions we're asked to swallow.

She also accepts unquestioningly stats provided by NCMEC. Now I know that not everyone has followed their numbers the way the Wall Street Journal has to find out that they invent them and refuse to remove their inventions even when actual LEAs reveal that the numbers they use are fabrications. But again, it goes to her critical thinking skills that she considers them uncontroversial and unbiased when they fail to pass muster to those who can count.

"When the pornographic images are viewed by others, the children depicted are revictimized once again. The mere knowledge that images exist and are being circulated causes shame, humiliation and powerlessness."

That may be the case for some. Although, again, there is no explanation of the exceptionalism required only by CP, and not by non C-Ps and non P-Cs. But even if this were magically true; the very people making this claim know it to be false because they keep these images on file, review them, and YES, even recirculate them in "stings." Just ask anyone who has demanded that LEAs delete and remove their copies, and you will see that they don't believe that this "revictimization" occurs.

She also selectively goes for cases where ( supposedly ) actual children were harmed; even though the illegality of CP is, by design, not subject to evaluation based upon consideration of harm. Lack of demonstrable harm is not only NOT the issue, but it is legally inconsiderable based on the very citations she provides. So choosing cases where harm supposedly exists ( if you believe that Little Lupe is child-rape before she provides her birth cert ) is simply panic-mongering, or naively believing whatever prosecutors will claim to get a conviction.

The laws could do better. But they don't. And its not by degree, but by design.

In short she says that despite lack of ability to critically review the evidence we must accept that CP is what they claim it is. ( Even against evidence that those claims are frequently wrong. ) That the mere existence of CP laws is their own justification. ( She cites passage as though no questionable law or class of questionable laws has gained passage. ) And that CP is magic voodoo which is exempt from the rules governing crime, evidence, and viewing.

Well, we already know that there are folks that gullible. But she'll have to do better that preach to those who believe that fictions are the same as harmed children.

And somehow nobody thinks to make the voodoo b*llsh*t case that a pleasured child is magically repleasured anytime an image of them being pleasured is viewed. ( I'm talking about eating ice-cream here. Sheesh. Get your mind out of the gutter. )

Dante