3 ms·

That's difficult - because it depends on the classification of "indecent". Which is subjective. There are usually a few levels of "indecent image". Here in the

by ErrantX 17y ago

That's difficult - because it depends on the classification of "indecent". Which is subjective. There are usually a few levels of "indecent image". Here in the UK we use the Copine scale which has 5 levels. Level 1 includes non/semi nudes but in an overtly sexual pose OR nudes but in a non-sexual pose. Im not sure of the exact classification system used in the states but I think they do it similarly. The difference here is that if you only have a few level 1 images then you wont get prosecuted - i.e. these people wouldn't be prosecuted here. (based on that I am assuming that the US system is a bit more lenient about what is classed as indecent)

pyre 17y ago
> based on that I am assuming that the US system is a bit more lenient about what is classed as indecent It's basically up to however draconian a judge, jury or prosecutor wants it to be. If a girl baking cookies in a short skirt is 'indecent' to someone in that list, then you might just get successfully prosecuted for it. It's really insane. [EDIT] The system was supposedly designed with its original intent being to protect victims (child abusers, and to a lesser extent child porn consumers in a bid to choke off demand for child porn). Now it's basically become a vehicle whose aim is to punish you if your get off on something that they don't like, or do something that they don't like (where 'they' is someone in that list above). If a judge has a stick up his ass about teens being 'immoral' then he may just throw the book at teens that are brought to his court for 'sexting' just to satisfy his urge to punish someone for it.
- ErrantX 17y ago
  Hmm that is insane. It is a subjective thing - but here it is considered expert testimony. Therefore it is up to an expert to grade the images and present the findings to the court (of course the jury can judge the images for themselves). I know it is similar in some parts of the US - but I guess not everywhere :(

by ErrantX 17y ago

pyre 17y ago

> based on that I am assuming that the US system is a bit more lenient about what is classed as indecent It's basically up to however draconian a judge, jury or prosecutor wants it to be. If a girl baking cookies in a short skirt is 'indecent' to someone in that list, then you might just get successfully prosecuted for it. It's really insane. [EDIT] The system was supposedly designed with its original intent being to protect victims (child abusers, and to a lesser extent child porn consumers in a bid to choke off demand for child porn). Now it's basically become a vehicle whose aim is to punish you if your get off on something that they don't like, or do something that they don't like (where 'they' is someone in that list above). If a judge has a stick up his ass about teens being 'immoral' then he may just throw the book at teens that are brought to his court for 'sexting' just to satisfy his urge to punish someone for it.

ErrantX 17y ago
Hmm that is insane. It is a subjective thing - but here it is considered expert testimony. Therefore it is up to an expert to grade the images and present the findings to the court (of course the jury can judge the images for themselves). I know it is similar in some parts of the US - but I guess not everywhere :(