Think of this scenario - you own a warehouse, and have a security system installed, with cameras on all sides of the building. A couple of nights later, you get a call from the police - a rape was reported outside your building from the night before. Your security footage would be useful evidence, they say - so you hand it over, not bothering to consult a lawyer first. The next week, you accidentally cut off the county prosecutor driving to work, and he files charges for "possession of rape video", based on the footage you handed over to police. The law has no provision for Mens Rea, so you are quickly convicted and are now labelled a felon and sex offender.
And that's just one of the reasons you shouldn't ban the possession of images/videos of an illegal act.
I agree there's clearly room for nuance, but there always is. No law should ever be treated as black or white, that's why we have prosecutorial discretion, judges, and juries.
It would be great if the world actually worked like that even when someone's promotion or political career was on the line. Selective enforcement leads to cronyism and arbitrariness.
Think of this scenario - you own a warehouse, and have a security system installed, with cameras on all sides of the building. A couple of nights later, you get a call from the police - a rape was reported outside your building from the night before. Your security footage would be useful evidence, they say - so you hand it over, not bothering to consult a lawyer first. The next week, you accidentally cut off the county prosecutor driving to work, and he files charges for "possession of rape video", based on the footage you handed over to police. The law has no provision for Mens Rea, so you are quickly convicted and are now labelled a felon and sex offender.
And that's just one of the reasons you shouldn't ban the possession of images/videos of an illegal act.