Online child porn victims lose at Supreme Court

[Ohio Joe]

A deeply divided Supreme Court set limits Wednesday to how much monetary compensation child victims of online pornography may reap from those who viewed their images.

The 5-4 decision set aside a $3.4 million judgement awarded to a woman whose pictures of her being raped as a child were widely circulated online.

The court ruled that Doyle Randall Paroline, a Texas man who was prosecuted in the case, does not have to pay that large sum, which is the total amount of damages the victim's lawyers say she deserved.

The opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy, however, did not clearly instruct lower court judges how to decide what compensation is fair, instead saying that they should "do their best." The dissenting justices said that the opinion paved the way for "arbitrary" awards and said judges should calculate damages based on the amount of harm the perpetrator caused the victim.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/04/online-child-porn-victims-lose-at-supreme-court/

Sheesh... We so very badly need just a few replacements on the court.

[WinkyDink]

1. The SCOTUS has no business in taking on compensation cases of any kind.

[msanthrope]

9. Why? It's VAWA. nt

[WinkyDink]

28. ??

[onenote]

10. Did the court of appeals have any business taking on the case?

After all, it was the court of appeals, not the district court, that found that the victim was entitled to full compensation from the defendant.

[msanthrope]

8. ah...you might wanna take a more focused look at who lined up with whom on this one. nt

[Nye Bevan]

22. Ginsburg, Breyer and Kagan? (nt)

[chknltl]

3. "Sheesh... We so very badly need just a few replacements on the court."

So very true Ohio Joe, so very true. KnR

[Nye Bevan]

23. But keep the justices who dissented, right? (nt)

[jberryhill]

4. ...unless the victims run for office

...in which case they can receive unlimited compensation.

[Maraya1969]

5. Was this guy the rapist or the one who sent the photo around or just one of the people who saw the

photo? I suppose I could get the answer at the link.

[DrDan]

12. someone who saw it

[Ohio Joe]

17. No. Not someone who saw it... Someone who had child pron on his computer...

And being involved in collecting child porn, was almost certainly sharing as well.

[DrDan]

30. the point was - it was not the rapist, and I don't see

that the person convicted circulated it further - hence it was one who "viewed" the photo.

And yes - it was probably stored on his computer . . .

You are speculating on "collecting" and "sharing" . . . right? The compensation was based on viewing.

[Ohio Joe]

31. No, I'm not speculating...

He had hundreds of child porn photos on his computer... He was convicted of it, it is what the whole thing is based on.

[DrDan]

32. please show me a link that shows he was circulating the pictures as you claim

[Ohio Joe]

35. Since your google is broken...

Doyle Randall Paroline pled guilty to possessing 150 to 300 images of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct. Two images were of a child named Amy, whose uncle sexually abused her and then put pictures displaying this abuse online, where Mr. Paroline obtained them.

http://www.rainn.org/public-policy/sexual-assault-in-the-state-and-federal-courts

So he had 150-300 images in his possession... And as I said in my post "was almost certainly sharing as well". So, no, he was no convicted of distribution (but I did not claim he was either) and you can feel good that you have done due diligence trying to protect the scumbags name.

[DrDan]

40. his conviction had to do with those 2 images . . . was it not?

and the claim of sharing was no more than speculation on your part

I am not trying to protect anyone . . . and you know that. I am just trying to keep the facts straight . . . something I recommend to you.

[Ohio Joe]

41. No. His conviction had to do with all the images he had... This suit is about those two images...

"I am just trying to keep the facts straight . . . something I recommend to you."

Then perhaps you should admit your facts were wrong and mine were correct. I never said he was convicted of sharing... Once again, what I said was "was almost certainly sharing as well", I clarified that in my last post. Everything I've said is correct and cited, and the way you were trying to minimize what was done is corrected.

[DrDan]

42. I am not minimizing anything - I am looking at the facts

"The woman, known only as Amy, had won the judgment from a single man who had viewed two of the more than 150 pornographic images of her that existed, The Associated Press reported.

http://www.businessinsider.com/amys-response-in-paroline-case-2014-4#ixzz2zqyN5WmY


She won the judgement from the man who viewed two of her pictures.

As I said - please keep the facts straight.

And you certainly were making some claim that he was sharing. Please substantiate that claim.

[Ohio Joe]

43. FFS... You searched for an article that said 'view'... Lets put it to rest...

Offense/Statute:
POSSESSION MAT INVLVNG SEX EXPL CHILD

http://www.homefacts.com/offender-detail/TX08752854/Doyle-Randall-Paroline.html

Possession... Still going to defend the scumbag?

"And you certainly were making some claim that he was sharing. Please substantiate that claim."

How many times do I have to clarify what was clear to begin with? You are playing games and doing your best to defend a pedophile... I'm done because I know even with my latest link you will continue to deny you were wrong and defend the PoS.

[DrDan]

44. please show me ONCE where I defended him - you cannot do it

you were simply speculating and were called on it.

You claimed he had hundreds of pictures on his computer.

You claimed he was sharing.

You have yet to provide a single link where either of those is confirmed.

Now you are claiming I am defending him!!!!! Ridiculous!

[Ohio Joe]

45. When you deny facts that are cited, you are defending him

Try actually reading the links I've given... or at least what I quoted from them, they prove everything I've said. That you want to just keep denying them is all the proof required to show your defense of a pedophile.

It's disgusting and you should be getting a pizza for this shit.

[DrDan]

46. I did read them - I fail to see any mention that he circulated any images

Please provide a link confirming this.

I have NO problem with A judgement against him requiring payment of damages (contrary to you wild claim of defense). However, I can also understand the rationale behind the USSC ruling regarding the size of that judgement.

So . . . still awaiting a link(s) confirming your speculation.

(on edit - ok - I did see the link confirming he had 150-300 images. But . . . no mention of further circulation.)

[Ohio Joe]

47. Please go defend this pedophile elsewhere

Your game is both tiresome and disgusting.

[DrDan]

48. I just made an edit to my previous post - I saw the 150-300 images mentioned.

But . . . I have yet to see anything (except your speculation) confirming any further circulation.

And please . . . get real . . . I am NOT in any way defending his actions. Your claim otherwise is simply ridiculous. Asking for a link to confirm facts is NOT in any fashion a defense for this guys actions . . . but you know that.

[Ohio Joe]

49. Good... Now go back and look again about what I said regarding distribution...

Then come back, stop defending this asshole and admit I was right or piss off. I'm tired of this game.

[DrDan]

50. once again . . . please show me WHERE I defended him . . . you can't do it

asking for a link to your speculation is not a "defense" . . . regardless of how you want to twist it

[DrDan]

33. as I read it, he was convicted of viewing 2 pictures of the victim

there were more around, but his conviction was based on viewing 2 . . .

that's the way I read it, but perhaps you have a link showing otherwise.

[onenote]

13. One person who had two images on his computer.

The problem here is that the statute was a mess. One reading (the one by the court of appeals) would allow a victim to sue separately each person that possessed the images and recover the entire amount of damages determined in that case to provide restitution for the harm suffered not just as the result of the defendant's actions, but as the result of the images being out there to be viewed by anyone. So, for instance, if a victim sued defendant number one and established entitlement of restitution in the amount of $3.4 million not just for that defendant's conduct, but for the conduct as a whole, the victim could then sue defendant number two, and if she again proved that her harm amounts to $3.4 million, she could get another $3.4 million and so on and so forth. That is a reasonable reading of what the statute provides. But it also talks about the concept of "proximate cause" and another reading is that the statute requires a court to figure out what portion of the injury for which restitution is sought was the proximate cause of the actions of the particular defendant. That is what the majority concluded. Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts agreed with the majority that there is a proximate cause requirement, but claimed there was no way to prove the allocable portion and thus, rather than throw it back to the courts to make what they claimed would be an arbitrary allocation, they ruled, in effect, that Congress has to fix the statute.

[Ohio Joe]

19. No. He had two images of this girl...

Many more of others.

[onenote]

26. The only images relevant to the harm caused this girl were the two of her

Let me be clear that I don't agree with the Scalia, Roberts, Alito dissent. But I can't disagree with the argument that the statute is a mess and that by employing the concepts of restitution and proximate cause, it makes it hard to justify an interpretation that allows each person who possesses one or more copy of the offending photo(s) to be liable for the entire amount of restitution whether or not they possessed one image or 101 images.

Typically, if more than one person engages in activity that causes someone injury, the amount of damages that can be awarded cannot exceed the amount needed to compensate the victim for the harm they suffered. It may be possible to get the entire amount from one defendant and they can go after other guilty parties for contribution to offset the amount of harm that they were responsible for causing. Or the plaintiff can only get the amount of damages that the particular defendant they are suing proximately caused. But under the interpretation adopted by the Fifth Circuit, the victim in this case was entitled to the $3.4 million the court concluded was the total harm she had incurred, even though she could (and as I understand it had) sued and recovered other amounts from other defendants, such that her total recovery would exceed the $3.4 million the court had established as her total amount of harm.

If the law hadn't used terms like restitution and proximate cause, I'd be more inclined to say Sotomayor is right. Frankly, the better way to handle it, imo, is to make it clear that the penalty goes beyond mere restitution for actual damages, thus ensuring that even a person who only played a small part in causing the damages faces a significant liability without having to worry about proving their relative culpability.

[dsc]

51. No that isn't what the appeals court said

They did say that the victim could get the whole amount from any combination of defendants she wished to but she couldn't get the more than the total amount of damages from any combination of defendants. In point of fact she got the amount she got because she had already gotten over a million from previous defendants.

[dickthegrouch]

6. What's a nothing between friends?

The lower court should take those business-minded "supreme" justices into account and tack on a nothing. That would make $34M instead, and is a much fairer amount.

[msanthrope]

7. You might want to actually read who is in the dissent, and who is in the majority

before you start talking about replacements.....

Not for anything, but the Roberts/Scalia/Thomas dissent is nausea inducing.

[LittleBlue]

14. Knees are jerking

Gtfo with this law and rationality talk

[Ohio Joe]

15. No... I'll back Justice Sotomayer's dissent and stick with my thinking that we need replacements...

You can be satisfied with less but not me.

[msanthrope]

16. Satisfied with less? Where did I say that? nt

[Ohio Joe]

18. You implied it...

That because justices were put on by D's, I should not think they should be replaced.

[msanthrope]

20. I implied nothing of the sort. But I would suggest that you read the cases you opine on. nt

[Ohio Joe]

25. Then spit out what you are saying...

I know who said what and think that except for one, they were wrong.

[LittleBlue]

21. We would need replacements for all but one

She was the sole voice behind her dissent, as she wrote it separately from the other dissenters (Scalia, Thomas and Roberts). The latter three formed their own dissent in a different opinion. The majority opinion was written/supported by Kennedy, Ginsburg, Alito, Breyer and Kagan.

You're implying we replace the liberal justices of the court.

[Ohio Joe]

24. No...

I said we need to replace some... I believe replacing the vile dissenters would allow for better results from all of them. I am also not letting off the final judgement just because of who put them there.

[Captain Stern]

11. I don't think the ruling is as bad as it initially sounds.

From what I've read, the court is basically saying that the victim does deserve the 3.4 million dollars, but she can't recover all of it from just one guy that viewed the images (which would essentially mean that everyone else that viewed the images, and the people that made, and distributed them would pay nothing).

[Loudly]

27. Your U.S. Congress passed tort immunity legislation for gun makers.

Products which kill children.

Actually kill. Actual children.

Full $$ immunity thanks to your Republican majority and Dem ass kissers.

[pintobean]

39. Are you lost?

This thread has nothing to do with guns or congress.

[manicmuse1]

29. Children are increasingly loosing what little rights they had!

Do some research on the privitization of DYFS. Some states including NJ have privitized many services of DYFS so now no matter how abused, or neglected they can offer them services so the children can continue to live in fear!

[former9thward]

34. Who are you going to replace?

Ginsburg, Kagan and Beyer were part of the majority opinion.

[Ohio Joe]

36. I would start with the repugs who gave a vile dissent...

Then move on to the other three if they kept giving shitty opinions. What would you do? Leave it as is? Just be good with crap like this?

[former9thward]

37. The SC is a very complicated institution.

The so-called 5-4 decisions where it is conservative vs. liberal get the publicity but most decisions the court gives don't go down on nice neat ideological splits. Obama could appoint all nine and people still would be angry at decisions.

[William769]

38. Well, when you have the fox watching the hen house...