To the Editor:
This case (the Supreme Court has considered a case from a plaintiff known as “Amy Unknown,” a sexual abuse survivor who has sought restitution from those who viewed pornagraphic images of her online) brings up a number of questions deserving further thought.
The concept violating a person’s body, of invasion of privacy, copyright law, public domain law, free speech, differentiating between the perpetrator of this crime and whether just having knowledge of a crime warrants restitution from the knowledgeable person.
While anonymous Amy definitely deserves our sympathy and compassion, it’s doubtful she would be recognized on the street from her youthful picture. How Amy would be damaged by someone possessing her picture is unknown. It is as if Auschwitz prisoners deserve restitution for their photographs in addition to the sympathy and compassion they would receive if known. Surely the pictures could be made legal by blocking out areas and then spammed around the globe. Would each recipient be due a fee or fine for possession?
We get into the area of fines or fees for knowledge and evidence of a crime, covering new legal ground.
Sincerely,
Thomas Cechner
Lockport