Possession of child porn obviously means that someone took pictures of whatever act was being photographed. That act of child rape is the source of the photos. Possessing those photos means that you are OK with what happened to that child. Defending someone for "simply possessing the the material" is saying that that the process that the photos came from is OK.
The photos, or videos can't exist without the criminal sex act with a child that the photos or video came from. That's what's wrong with simply possessing the material.
RE: Ethereum’s Vitalik Buterin advocates for Child Porn!!!! ETH 🔥... Try EOS
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Ethereum’s Vitalik Buterin advocates for Child Porn!!!! ETH 🔥... Try EOS
This logic is not only deeply flawed, the flaw was already discussed in other comments by some other poster, but I'll reiterate it here.
A TV news station has video of murdered people (and maybe even videos of them being murdered). This doesn't mean that simple possession of that video is saying that the process that those videos came from is OK.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit