Jeremy writes:

"Little Johnny" is the victim, because images of him were captured by
someone without any permission, and with absolutely no guarantee that they
wouldn't be shared with other perverts.

Apart from the standard violation of his right to control the use of his
image, in what way is he a "victim"?

Look, if you don't like it, call your congressman. That's the law, enacted
by a democratically-elected legislative branch, and never challenged or
overturned by the Supreme Court.

I feel certain that you'd immediately adopt the opposite opinion if
Congress passed legislation in direct conflict with your own
preferences.

The security of children has more importance than your supposed "freedom" to
take photos of someone else's naked kids.

Children are not generally made insecure simply by having photographs
taken of them. Neither are adults.

Can't you find some other issue to vent on?

The only person I see venting is you, and I'm not sure where you found
the source of all this steam.

Why all this indifference to the rights of kids to be left
unmolested by dirty old men?

Taking pictures of someone in public is not molestation. (In fact,
taking pictures is never molestation, but the exact rights differ based
on the situation.)

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.