4 ms·

> Isn't it clear that this is not child porn, and that the law is wrong, when teenagers are sexting? The fact that it was taken by the "subject" , send to anot

by aikah 11y ago

> Isn't it clear that this is not child porn, and that the law is wrong, when teenagers are sexting? The fact that it was taken by the "subject" , send to another minor makes no difference. Some porn has been produced and may very well end up on a child porn site. The problem is the absurd harsh penalty risked by these minors if they get caught. Like becoming a registered sex offender and stuff like that. That's where the problem is. But you can't deny that this is underage porn content. Sexting doesn't mean anything new. There should be however some leniency because of the intent and that's not always the case. The justice system has to catch up. no question. You need to also consider that it looked like a well organized system if more than a 100 people were participating. Is it still just sexting when content is traded among students ?

StavrosK 11y ago
> Some porn has been produced and may very well end up on a child porn site. What? No. Child porn isn't illegal because its consumption hurts electrons, it's because its production hurts children. If nobody has been hurt while making this "child porn", and it was taken voluntarily (by someone who may even be able of legally consenting to sex, no less!) I don't see what the problem is.
- theconstitution 11y ago
  This actually makes for a pretty interesting case study -- you can read more here: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/virtual-child-pornography http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/virtual-child-pornograph... Not saying I necessarily agree with the reasoning, but the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 includes "picture or computer-generated image or picture" which "is, or, appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct" in its definition of child pornography. The reasoning was that even simulated child pornography fosters the market for, and encourages the consumption of, the kind that hurts children. Consumers won't necessarily know or care about the provenance of any particular piece of material, so all are banned regardless of the means of production. These provisions were struck down by the Supreme Court in 2002, on the reasoning that the ban was too broad -- "Without a significantly stronger, more direct connection, the Government may not prohibit speech on the ground that it may encourage pedophiles to engage in illegal conduct." So, Congress responded by more specifically criminalizing the advertisement, sale, or promotion of material that "reflects the belief, or that is intended to cause another to believe" that it is of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. So these images are still illegal on the simple fact that they are explicit; but even if one tried to ban only the non-voluntary or non-first-party images, it'd be illegal to pass them off otherwise. This topic is so radioactive that I'm reluctant even to write about it, but it really is interesting constitutionally.
  - StavrosK 11y ago
    That is very interesting indeed, thank you. I disagree with the reasoning, but I can understand it. It comes down to whether you think that child pornography that didn't include actual children is a "gateway drug" to the harmful kind, or whether you think it'll be a substitute, preventing people from harming children for their satisfaction. I don't think the average person can become a pedophile just by watching child porn, so I'm in the latter camp. Too bad this topic is too controversial to touch. Too bad there are such topics, really.

by aikah 11y ago

StavrosK 11y ago

> Some porn has been produced and may very well end up on a child porn site. What? No. Child porn isn't illegal because its consumption hurts electrons, it's because its production hurts children. If nobody has been hurt while making this "child porn", and it was taken voluntarily (by someone who may even be able of legally consenting to sex, no less!) I don't see what the problem is.

theconstitution 11y ago
This actually makes for a pretty interesting case study -- you can read more here: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/virtual-child-pornography http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/virtual-child-pornograph... Not saying I necessarily agree with the reasoning, but the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 includes "picture or computer-generated image or picture" which "is, or, appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct" in its definition of child pornography. The reasoning was that even simulated child pornography fosters the market for, and encourages the consumption of, the kind that hurts children. Consumers won't necessarily know or care about the provenance of any particular piece of material, so all are banned regardless of the means of production. These provisions were struck down by the Supreme Court in 2002, on the reasoning that the ban was too broad -- "Without a significantly stronger, more direct connection, the Government may not prohibit speech on the ground that it may encourage pedophiles to engage in illegal conduct." So, Congress responded by more specifically criminalizing the advertisement, sale, or promotion of material that "reflects the belief, or that is intended to cause another to believe" that it is of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. So these images are still illegal on the simple fact that they are explicit; but even if one tried to ban only the non-voluntary or non-first-party images, it'd be illegal to pass them off otherwise. This topic is so radioactive that I'm reluctant even to write about it, but it really is interesting constitutionally.
- StavrosK 11y ago
  That is very interesting indeed, thank you. I disagree with the reasoning, but I can understand it. It comes down to whether you think that child pornography that didn't include actual children is a "gateway drug" to the harmful kind, or whether you think it'll be a substitute, preventing people from harming children for their satisfaction. I don't think the average person can become a pedophile just by watching child porn, so I'm in the latter camp. Too bad this topic is too controversial to touch. Too bad there are such topics, really.