Market thesis: Difference between revisions
7 |
No edit summary |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
[[Deirdre von Dornum]] writes, "Because child pornography is free, widely available and easy to produce, it is not subject to the normal laws of supply and demand."<ref>https://www.nhregister.com/news/article/Debate-rages-over-severity-of-child-porn-sentences-11503089.php</ref><ref>https://www.fd.org/sites/default/files/criminal_defense_topics/essential_topics/sentencing_resources/defender_recommendations/written-statement-of-deirdre-d-von-dornum-at-ussc-2012-public-hrg-on-child-pornography-sentencing.pdf</ref> A 2012 [[U.S. Sentencing Commission]] report found, "Critics have contended that recent changes in Internet technology have undercut the ability of the criminal laws to affect the “market.”"<ref>https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/news/congressional-testimony-and-reports/sex-offense-topics/201212-federal-child-pornography-offenses/Full_Report_to_Congress.pdf</ref> | [[Deirdre von Dornum]] writes, "Because child pornography is free, widely available and easy to produce, it is not subject to the normal laws of supply and demand."<ref>https://www.nhregister.com/news/article/Debate-rages-over-severity-of-child-porn-sentences-11503089.php</ref><ref>https://www.fd.org/sites/default/files/criminal_defense_topics/essential_topics/sentencing_resources/defender_recommendations/written-statement-of-deirdre-d-von-dornum-at-ussc-2012-public-hrg-on-child-pornography-sentencing.pdf</ref> A 2012 [[U.S. Sentencing Commission]] report found, "Critics have contended that recent changes in Internet technology have undercut the ability of the criminal laws to affect the “market.”"<ref>https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/news/congressional-testimony-and-reports/sex-offense-topics/201212-federal-child-pornography-offenses/Full_Report_to_Congress.pdf</ref> | ||
A Senate report on child pornography observed: “the overwhelming majority of child pornography seized in arrests made in the United States has not been produced or distributed for profit.”<ref>S. Permanent Subcomm. on Investigations of the Comm. on Governmental Affairs, 99th Cong., 2d Sess., Child Pornography and Pedophilia 47 (Oct. 9, 1986).</ref><ref>https://books.google.com/books?id=vOAvAAAAIAAJ&pg=RA59-PA43&lpg=RA59-PA43 | A Senate report on child pornography observed: “the overwhelming majority of child pornography seized in arrests made in the United States has not been produced or distributed for profit.”<ref>S. Permanent Subcomm. on Investigations of the Comm. on Governmental Affairs, 99th Cong., 2d Sess., Child Pornography and Pedophilia 47 (Oct. 9, 1986).</ref><ref>https://books.google.com/books?id=vOAvAAAAIAAJ&pg=RA59-PA43&lpg=RA59-PA43</ref> | ||
Congress's own actions tend to undercut the market thesis. In 1978, 18 U.S.C. § 2252 became law as part of the [[Protection of Children Against Sexual Exploitation Act of 1977]]. As enacted in 1978, § 2252 was much narrower in scope than it is today because Congress's original intent was to thwart the widespread commercialization of child pornography. The earliest version of § 2252 punished those transporting, shipping, distributing, or receiving child pornography in interstate or foreign commerce for the purpose of sale. However, it soon became apparent that the original legislation was too limited in scope because non-commercial trafficking of child pornography was also pervasive. To rectify this problem, Congress passed the [[Child Protection Act of 1984]] which amended § 2252 and made non-commercial trafficking a federal crime.<ref>https://lawreview.law.miami.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/v65_i3_sbacon.pdf</ref> | |||
With the proliferation of peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing sites, the commercial market for child pornography dramatically contracted. As a result, the typical defendant today has probably been apprehended because of his involvement in a P2P file sharing network or an Internet forum, such as a bulletin board, newsgroup, or chat room.<ref>https://ir.law.fsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2593&context=lr</ref> | |||
==References== | ==References== | ||
Latest revision as of 23:23, 25 June 2020
The market thesis is the notion that child pornography consumers increase the market for child pornography production.
Deirdre von Dornum writes, "Because child pornography is free, widely available and easy to produce, it is not subject to the normal laws of supply and demand."[1][2] A 2012 U.S. Sentencing Commission report found, "Critics have contended that recent changes in Internet technology have undercut the ability of the criminal laws to affect the “market.”"[3]
A Senate report on child pornography observed: “the overwhelming majority of child pornography seized in arrests made in the United States has not been produced or distributed for profit.”[4][5]
Congress's own actions tend to undercut the market thesis. In 1978, 18 U.S.C. § 2252 became law as part of the Protection of Children Against Sexual Exploitation Act of 1977. As enacted in 1978, § 2252 was much narrower in scope than it is today because Congress's original intent was to thwart the widespread commercialization of child pornography. The earliest version of § 2252 punished those transporting, shipping, distributing, or receiving child pornography in interstate or foreign commerce for the purpose of sale. However, it soon became apparent that the original legislation was too limited in scope because non-commercial trafficking of child pornography was also pervasive. To rectify this problem, Congress passed the Child Protection Act of 1984 which amended § 2252 and made non-commercial trafficking a federal crime.[6]
With the proliferation of peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing sites, the commercial market for child pornography dramatically contracted. As a result, the typical defendant today has probably been apprehended because of his involvement in a P2P file sharing network or an Internet forum, such as a bulletin board, newsgroup, or chat room.[7]
References
- ↑ https://www.nhregister.com/news/article/Debate-rages-over-severity-of-child-porn-sentences-11503089.php
- ↑ https://www.fd.org/sites/default/files/criminal_defense_topics/essential_topics/sentencing_resources/defender_recommendations/written-statement-of-deirdre-d-von-dornum-at-ussc-2012-public-hrg-on-child-pornography-sentencing.pdf
- ↑ https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/news/congressional-testimony-and-reports/sex-offense-topics/201212-federal-child-pornography-offenses/Full_Report_to_Congress.pdf
- ↑ S. Permanent Subcomm. on Investigations of the Comm. on Governmental Affairs, 99th Cong., 2d Sess., Child Pornography and Pedophilia 47 (Oct. 9, 1986).
- ↑ https://books.google.com/books?id=vOAvAAAAIAAJ&pg=RA59-PA43&lpg=RA59-PA43
- ↑ https://lawreview.law.miami.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/v65_i3_sbacon.pdf
- ↑ https://ir.law.fsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2593&context=lr
