On video you could for example show a child very extreme images of violence. I think you could seriously harm someone in just a few seconds doing that. Not the same as phoning someone.
What ruins police is their day is endlessly looking at these photos that each new photo is another child.. it can feel hopeless. You can't compare it to someone dropping a dick pic in your zoom sharing screen ruining you for life. Most people's mental state can handle a brief gross moment.
Humans are more robust to shock than our cozy modern world might have us think.
It is, like you said,the non-stop barrage of horror that crushes people.
I distinctly remember being a bit shocked when I was ~6-8 and my great-grandfather smacked the fish I'd just caught on the gunwales of our boat. sudden, violent, but I pretty quickly realized "well yeah, I guess you do have to kill the fish at some point".
Though I did get messed up by a Discovery channel documentary about spontaneous human combustion when I was a kid. Mostly because I didn't get to finish it.
I don't really think I said that, did I. You're either imagining something I didn't said or you're deliberately misrepresenting.
I said:
> Not the same as phoning someone.
And it's not the same. It's surely far more harmful to be able to show someone an image than just audio. You can literally do everything you can in audio in video, and then more.
You don't have to listen to me - I think you'll find that flashing someone is prosecuted more severely than an obscene phone call in most societies.
Also, threatening sexual violence is never a 'prank' - don't do that.
I can email awful images to you too.
E.g. random definition pulled from merriam webster dictionary:
> an attempt to gain illegal access to a computer or computer system for the purpose of causing damage or harm
One can argue that there's not enough focus on the attack on a system here, but I'm not surprised it's used that way.
Not saying it means that is OK, but the decision is not clear cut either.