[Huntingwhale]

Lost in all this are the 17k+ followers who followed this guy on twitter and a large amount undoubtedly have those images stored on their computers. Now I'm not a lawyer so maybe I'm completely wrong here when it comes to understanding voyeurism law. But couldn't those people be charged for possession/accessing the material?

It's often said (from many law enforcement agencies themserlves) that if you view/access child pornography, even though you yourself are not involved in the abuse/production of the material itself, you are ''just as guilty'' since you provide the market for it. That you are part of the problem. People get charged for possession of that stuff all the time, even though they weren't the guy committing the act. So what exactly is the difference here? Obviously even accessing child pornography is a crime. But not voyeuristic images like this?