Thread by @soychicka

So, weird story I just ran across:
Trump advisor Howard Lorber's nephew has been convicted of possession of child pornography.

He was represented by Marc Kasowitz's firm.

There are lots of redactions. About his past, and his family.
docketbird.com/court-document…

So, re: the redactions: They're a problem.

While I sympathize with anyone who was a victim of sexual assault, etc., redactions are antithetical to the concept of justice.

What happens to victims is not their fault - it's the fault of those preying on them.

Masking the depravity behind a redaction serves no one's interests, and only reduces the risk to child predators.

Hiding descriptions of the acts means it is more likely that they - and others - will be able to continue preying on children.

This isn't about being 'nice' and keeping the dark locked up in the closet to protect victims...

This is about victims recognizing that they are not to blame, and allowing the predators to bear the full brunt of the shame and social ostracization they are rightly due.

Until victims come to realize this, and allow for detailed descriptions of the crimes against them to be placed in the public record, that only serves to further the stigma that is applied to discussing sexual assault.

Once you've worked through the healing process, you can recognize the strength you've gained from your experience as a survivor gives you a superpower over those predators:

empathy.

And that makes you want to keep this from happening ever again.

But most won't go back to request their case records be deredacted, as that is simply another amount of labor required of victims that they should not have to endure.

If it takes effort, especially if it takes lawyers or money, it ain't gonna get done.

IMO, if someone is using being abused as a child as a defense for their own child abuse or porn use, that defense can NOT be kept from the public - if you aren't willing to both state it as a PUBLIC defense, it should play no mitigating role in your legal prospectives.

Actually, I'd say that there should be legislation that holds sexual predators as responsible, in part, for any future actions of their victims. If necessary, those predators should be viewed as co-conspirators to the crime, or it should be viewed as an 'act in furtherance' of

an ongoing enterprise that promotes the promulgation of child sexual assault - true, there may not be an act every 2 years, but there is a clearly observed relationship between an act of sexual violence and future acts of sexual violence, and each new victim is recruited

to perpetuate that cycle.

For that reason, I suggest that the courts and legislators take a look at when redaction is permissible, when it should be rejected, and if/when those documents should eventually be deredacted unless the survivor objects at the time.

That automatic deredaction should be linked both to the circumstances of the assault(s) and perpetrator's age.

And no redaction should be permissible if the redacted content is linked to any element of the crime.

Repression of trauma is an understandable coping mechanism for a time - but effectively, by not bringing charges or suit, or public shame to those who you claim led you to become a sexual predator,

And when you become a consumer of the supply chain that profits from the sexual abuse of children...

if you aren't willing to hold those who abused you accountable, you don't deserve consideration for using that as an excuse.

note: much of this is rough draft and not totally elegant. i don't mean any victim should be forced to reveal details, though they should be encouraged to, and to do so knowing it will help others avoid the same fate.

Also, there's nothing that clearly indicates anyone sexually abused the defendant in this case - it's only highly circumstantially supported.

But, again, for me to NOT make that assumption, tell me what REALLY happened.

You're a defendant. Defend yourself.