If you’d like to share it, Ed, we can upload it and add it as a resource.

At the federal level, exceptions require official possessors to safeguard the evidence, and specify allowed uses. These include allowing “controlled” deliveries in sting operations. However, law enforcement personnel routinely flaunt generally applicable pornography laws as well as those directed specifically at them.

In federal prison, many of us were absorbed in legal research. My roommate consolidated this research into a 60 page document–including 5 pages of case citations– describing unlawful actions by law enforcement in an historical context. It is not hyperbole to assert that the government is likely the single largest unlawful distributor of child pornography.

After release, I scanned his typewritten pages through OCR software, and cleaned it up in a word processor. This is available in PDF format if anyone is interested.

Veritas.

It’s a bullsh*t argument made by an attorney in a case long ago, and the judge wanting to show empathy, of course agreed.

Anyone with a brain and some balls can understand that it’s not revictimization. What is revictimization is when the state sends notices to people in the videos which ends up reminding thr ‘victim’ and not letting them live their lives in peace. Those notices are the epitome of harassment for life. One victim sued the state just to make the notices stop.

I’ve always made the same point when hearing how those depicted in CP are “revictimized every time it was seen.”

To me, that’s absurd, like saying when a person driving 45 or 50 mph hits a 15 year old, it will obviously injure or kill the person. But when LE does it, it doesn’t leave a scratch.

Yes – there are exceptions

Something I always wondered about. Possession of CP. Is there an exception for law enforcement. When they take it as “evidence” they are in possession of it. SO they broke the law.