Re: Victims? Try this:

The well-publicized case of the child porn "star" known as Vicky, whom a judge recently determined was entitled to damages since she was further "victimized" every time the images were viewed.

Masha's law I believe?

The only problem with that was that the judge never saw the films himself.
Those who did realized that Vicky was not only a willing participant but the aggressor in the films.

... and not ever done by 'grooming' of course ...

Psssss, kids can enjoy sex, we know that, just as we know that tigers can be trained to jump through hoops and elephants can stand on two legs after suficient 'training', resemble kids? Probably not to you but then we do train kids from birth - nasty little nappy-soiling bleeders ...

However, she blew up like a whale and got so fat that her own father would not do it with her any more, so she turned on him and ratted him out. Now he is doing time and she is still trying to collect money from other people who have been convicted of possession.

Yeah, what a whore ...

Personally, I am all in favor of those who are the stars being able to sell their images to those who are willing to buy them, but I am against coercion, especially in as blatant a case as hers.

So what was all that about - 'willing participant'.

As for the Danish kids, they were not only willing participants but were "heroes" and "stars" to the other kids in school.

Don't know so can't really comment - but perhaps the environment they were brought up in might have had some influence. 'Yes, sex with dad and uncle Magnus is perfectly normal Britta'.

When Denmark legalized pornography, cases of sexual assault against women declined, and during the 1970s, when child pornography was legal not only in Denmark but in the United States as well, incidences of child molestation and sexual assault against children also declined.

Might have done, still not that clear but still not THE argument for allowing possession taking into account other factors.

To me, the bottom line is this: does the government have the right to tell you what you can do, if you are not posing a clear and present danger to the health or safety of another person?
The answer is clearly no, and even a peremptory perusal of American history and/or the Declaration of Independence and our constitution
will show that the founders of the United States felt the same.

Well, it seems the vast majority of governments disagree with you since they HAVE made possession illegal, so do as you will but beware of the consequences ...