Skip to comments.
Supreme Court limits damages to victims of child porn, throws out $3.4 million award
The Washington Post ^
| April 23, 2014
| Robert Barnes
Posted on 04/23/2014 10:27:17 AM PDT by Lurking Libertarian
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40 next last
Interesting line-up of Justices: Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito and Kagan in the middle; Roberts, Scalia and Thomas on the side of the child-porn defendant; and Sotomayor on the side of the victim and the prosecution.
To: Lurking Libertarian
On the other hand, what does the law say?
2
posted on
04/23/2014 10:29:31 AM PDT
by
Jeff Chandler
(Obamacare: You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.)
To: Lurking Libertarian
To: Lurking Libertarian
Porn is not big business. Porn is HUGE business.
Bust ‘em.
4
posted on
04/23/2014 10:32:11 AM PDT
by
Psalm 144
(FIGHT! FIGHT! SEVERE CONSERVATIVE AND THE WILD RIGHT!)
To: Lurking Libertarian
At this stage, with no moral foundation In the country, constitutional interpretation is nothing but a mental maturbatory function.
5
posted on
04/23/2014 10:35:03 AM PDT
by
JPX2011
To: Lurking Libertarian; BuckeyeTexan
Some background on this case:
The defendant in this case did not rape the child victim; he was merely one of the (sadly, thousands of) perverts who downloaded the film of her abuse.
Congress said that anyone convicted of possession of child pornography should, in addition to a prison sentence, pay the victim for the damages he "caused." The Government (and most of the lower courts) said that each defendant who possessed the images could be liable for the victim's full damages, until the victim is paid in full. Only Sotomayor accepted that argument. The majority said that each defendant should pay only his own share. Roberts, Thomas and Scalia said the victim was damaged by being raped, not by having people watch the film of her rape, so the defendant should pay nothing.
To: Lurking Libertarian
I guess execution is out of the question...............
7
posted on
04/23/2014 10:35:55 AM PDT
by
Red Badger
(Soon there will be another American Civil War. Will make the first one seem like a Tea Party........)
To: Lurking Libertarian; BillyBoy; GOPsterinMA; Impy; NFHale; fieldmarshaldj; AuH2ORepublican; ...
RE :”
The statute as written allows no recovery; we ought to say so, and give Congress a chance to fix it, he wrote in a dissent joined by Justice Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor also dissented, but in the opposite direction. She said the law requires each individual convicted of possessing Amys images be held liable for the full amount of the victims losses.
........Amy was raped by an uncle when she was 8 and 9 years old, and the events were recorded. When she was 17, she learned that the images were widely available online; her attorney Paul G. Cassell estimates more than 70,000 people have seen them. Unusual case.
I guess the uncle that did it has no $$$.
So she went after the 70,000, or obviously a subset of them.
8
posted on
04/23/2014 10:36:38 AM PDT
by
sickoflibs
(Obama : 'You can keep your doctor if you want. I never tell a lie ')
To: Lurking Libertarian
Give the leftists few years and the case will be if it’s even illegal to make it.
9
posted on
04/23/2014 10:36:57 AM PDT
by
VanDeKoik
To: JPX2011
At this stage, with no moral foundation In the country, constitutional interpretation is nothing but a mental maturbatory function.This wasn't a constitutional case; it was an interpretation of the language used by Congress, and all the Justices agreed that Congress could change the result for future cases by changing the language of the statute.
To: Lurking Libertarian
Then substitute legislative interpretation. The point still stands.
11
posted on
04/23/2014 10:40:43 AM PDT
by
JPX2011
To: Lurking Libertarian
She was a victim, but a lesson for those who think earning some pin money by doing an internet porn shoot would be cool should know what is published on the internet is available forever.
"Is that grandma!?"
12
posted on
04/23/2014 10:42:21 AM PDT
by
AU72
To: Lurking Libertarian
Interesting case, sounds like Roberts has it right.
13
posted on
04/23/2014 10:43:44 AM PDT
by
bigbob
(The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly. Abraham Lincoln)
To: VanDeKoik
Give the leftists few years and the case will be if its even illegal to make it.It wasn't "the leftists" who voted for the defendant in this case.
To: Lurking Libertarian
Dear Stupid People in Robes; how about you let a jury decide?
I’m pretty sure that 12 names pulled randomly from a hat can do a better job than you nine.
15
posted on
04/23/2014 10:45:18 AM PDT
by
Valpal1
(If the police can t solve a problem with violence, they ll find a way to fix it with brute force)
To: Lurking Libertarian
RE :”
Congress said that anyone convicted of possession of child pornography should, in addition to a prison sentence, pay the victim for the damages he “caused.” The Government (and most of the lower courts) said that each defendant who possessed the images could be liable for the victim's full damages, until the victim is paid in full. Only Sotomayor accepted that argument. The majority said that each defendant should pay only his own share. Roberts, Thomas and Scalia said the victim was damaged by being raped, not by having people watch the film of her rape, so the defendant should pay nothing. “ Great summary.
Scalia and Thomas definitely ruled on the law as usual.
Speaking of ‘The majority said that each defendant should pay only his own share.’
Those would only be the ones they tracked down.
it doesn't indicate how they got this video, a share site or a pay site.
16
posted on
04/23/2014 10:47:16 AM PDT
by
sickoflibs
(Obama : 'You can keep your doctor if you want. I never tell a lie ')
To: VanDeKoik
It will depend on the race, gender, and sexual orientation of the victim and attacker.
17
posted on
04/23/2014 10:48:02 AM PDT
by
demshateGod
(The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
To: Lurking Libertarian
Fortunately this was just about what a monetary punishment should be for an act that they all universally loathed....for now.
To: VanDeKoik
Fortunately this was just about what a monetary punishment should be for an act that they all universally loathed....for now.
**********
Indeed.
19
posted on
04/23/2014 10:55:21 AM PDT
by
Psalm 144
(FIGHT! FIGHT! SEVERE CONSERVATIVE AND THE WILD RIGHT!)
To: Valpal1
Dear Stupid People in Robes; how about you let a jury decide? Im pretty sure that 12 names pulled randomly from a hat can do a better job than you nine.That's not the law Congress wrote. The statute says that the jury decides if the defendant is guilty of possession of child porn, and the judge decides his sentence, including the amount of restitution.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson