bendog
Diamond Member
- Mar 4, 2013
- 46,279
- 9,696
I'm not surprised. And frankly, I'm a little torn. There were three options: Amy gets nothing, Amy gets it all from one bad guy, Amy has to collect from everyone who saw her rape video until she reaches the maximum amount of damages she can prove. They took the last option.
I thought the second was good, but my reaction was prejudicial against guys who like watching video of kids getting raped. It's not really a conservative view to allow a victim to collect all the damages from one person, regardless of the fact that he actually did not cause a large part of the damages to her. But it does make a certain utilitarian sense because the one guy will then go after all the other child prono viewers to get them to pay him back for the money he had to pay for the damage they did.
Supreme Court limits damages to victims of child porn, throws out $3.4 million award - The Washington Post
I thought the second was good, but my reaction was prejudicial against guys who like watching video of kids getting raped. It's not really a conservative view to allow a victim to collect all the damages from one person, regardless of the fact that he actually did not cause a large part of the damages to her. But it does make a certain utilitarian sense because the one guy will then go after all the other child prono viewers to get them to pay him back for the money he had to pay for the damage they did.
Supreme Court limits damages to victims of child porn, throws out $3.4 million award - The Washington Post