They don't get the luxury of considering the first amendment right of their attacker or of the porn industry.
This is the equivalent of a gun-control advocate saying that shooting victims don't have the luxury of considering the second amendment rights of gun owners and manufacturers.
There is no right that does not have potential negative consequences. But the effect of blocking the right, because of those consequence would be far worse.
"Because someone is inspired to commit crime by an object doesn't mean we can ban it. Mark David Chapman said he was inspired to murder John Lennon, by A Catcher in the Rye. Should we ban that?"
It takes a real leap to read A Catcher in the Rye and think "I want to kill John Lennon"
It is not as big a leap for a viewer of child porn to think "I want to have sex with a child"
"This is the equivalent of a gun-control advocate saying that shooting victims don't have the luxury of considering the second amendment rights of gun owners and manufacturers."
I don't think it is.
The second amendment was written to protect the people from the government - and from each other.
And while the first amendment gives us freedom of speech - still our society has recognized there are limits and people can be harmed.
I don't have the freedom of speech to announce my neighbor is a thief - when he isn't. This is considered harmful, and my neigbhor could take legal action.
Our society has recognized that child pornography is harmful - and it is illegal. Freedom of speech does not apply here.
It may take some time for our country to become fully aware of how harmful other forms of pornography are - and until then we will continue to see people hurting others because they are acting out sick fantasies they learned from their porn habit.
"There is no right that does not have potential negative consequences. But the effect of blocking the right, because of those consequence would be far worse.
"
easy for you to say.
I doubt the parents of a raped and murdered child would agree.