I can see the logic behind arguing that child porn is protected by the 1st Amendment. After all, gory images and other horrifying visuals aren't illegal, so why is child pornography? The issue is that the production of child porn and the consumption of it are connected, and the production is inherently criminal.
Let's say I have a business where I record videos on a dashcam and sell videos of the interesting things I see when I drive. (Sound lucrative, right?) If I'm driving down the street and my dashcam catches a guy getting run over by another car, my production of that video is not inherently criminal. I did nothing to cause the event. I may sell the video to interested people, but it's not like their demand for the video in any way increases the likelihood someone could get run over by another car.
Instead, if I take a video of someone raping a child with the intent to later sell the video, I am participating in a sex crime against that child. The people who buy that video from me are indirectly participating in the crime because they are funding it. Furthermore, in paying me for this production, they are incentivizing me to continue raping children and filming it for profit. Even if they aren't paying for it, consuming this sort of media violates the rights of the children involved, since these "performers" cannot reasonably be said to be acting as both free and rational agents. The only scenario where watching this video would not be exploitative would be in trying to pursue justice for the people involved. Unsurprisingly, that is the only way one can legally distribute and watch child pornography in the US.>>2384
I was going to say that example is massively retarded, until I got to this part:>The police apparently warned him to delete the images or risk prosecution, before reportedly failing to do much at all to address the behavior about which Ortell was concerned. Because of that, he kept the images, ostensibly so that he could address the behavior with other parties that might help him intervene. And that's when he was prosecuted for child pornography.
The key here is that he was warned by police that if he did not delete the images, he would be committing a crime and could face prosecution. He then proceeded to not delete the images. I get that his intent may have been benign in this case, but what did he think they meant when they told him "If you don't delete these images, you could be charged with a crime?" I get that it sucks, but this seems to be another example of a person playing stupid games and winning stupid prizes.