5 ms·

If you're a 16 old girl with a picture of your boyfriend naked you can be guilty of child pornography. How is she engaging in the exploitation of children? Thi

by Oletros 10y ago

If you're a 16 old girl with a picture of your boyfriend naked you can be guilty of child pornography. How is she engaging in the exploitation of children? This is the problem, that a percentage of sex offenders are people like this hypothetic girl (or boy). When a 18 years person can be guilty of sex offending by having ex with his/her 17 old partner we have a problem

nostrebored 10y ago
Your comment is orthogonal to the situation posed by the GP. And I would say that if you're an 18yo who's looking at child pornography you should not be around children, especially those to whom you have unfettered access to as a parent/guardian. >When a 18 years person can be guilty of sex offending by having ex with his/her 17 old partner we have a problem I'm not arguing that Romeo and Juliet laws are a bad thing (even though I think that some state's implementations are too generous -- Georgia's laws effectively mean you can be a college freshman sleeping with high school freshmen). But when you're in the position that you're an 18yo with nude pictures of a minor, you do effectively have child porn. You should know well enough by that point to delete it. You are an adult. A non trivial number of these pictures do end up on the internet. Do you think that you should be a sex offender if as an 18yo you disseminate a picture of your 16yo partner? Do you think we should have a separate tier of images that are by definition child porn, but because of who possesses them they are not considered to be child porn? This will assuredly help actual offenders avoid the consequences of their actions.
- DanBC 10y ago
  Actual offenders have large collections of images of child sexual abuse. They don't have a few images of someone close to their age that they're in a relationship with. Sexting is a serious problem, and there are elements of abuse around it (some children coerce others into providing these images, for example). But treating all children who have nude images as sex offenders doesn't help the victims; it doesn't help the other children; and crucially it diverts law enforcement attention away from more serious offenders.
  - nostrebored 10y ago
    How do you define 'close to your age'? Does not being in a relationship suddenly make it child porn in your eyes? Also 'actual offenders' seems to imply that those who don't have large collections aren't actual offenders? I don't care if you dabble in child porn, the fact is that by viewing and spreading this videos you do create a demand for more to be created. You are complicit in the exploitation and abuse of children. Also, repeat exposure has been shown to dispose you to be more likely to abuse children yourself. And sure, the legal system should have some ability to use discretion. But the age of consent is there for a reason. We as a society have agreed that non-adults are incapable of consenting to a sexual relationship. As an aside, you don't have to look very hard to find examples of people sharing sexts with their friends. It even came up in the Brock Turner case not too long ago. When these pictures are of children/people under 18, that is by definition dissemination of child pornography. The ages of the other parties being shown a picture does not matter.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - unclenoriega 10y ago
      Your comments point out a lot of issues with how to handle nude images of minors. I think the problem a lot of people have is that the legal system _does_ have some ability to use discretion but for whatever reason does not in many instances.
- Oletros 10y ago
  > But when you're in the position that you're an 18yo with nude pictures of a minor, you do effectively have child porn I would like to know why you're so radical in this topic. Perhaps because I'm not American and attitude to sex here is not so puritan I can't understand it. In the beach promenade we have a nudist beach, two meters apart, everyone, including child can see nude men and women, or other child, and nobody cares about it, they see it as normal. I can see a lot of women breastfeeding in public and nobody cares. The charges someone can face for peeing in the street is for uncivic behaviour (normally 30€), but they are not charged for a sexual offense. > A non trivial number of these pictures do end up on the internet. Do you think that you should be a sex offender if as an 18yo you disseminate a picture of your 16yo partner? You're always taking the worst case. The problem is when your 18 years old have pictures in his phone of his 17 years old partner and he/she is guilty of having sex porn.
  - nostrebored 10y ago
    You think that sharing pictures of people under 18, who have given the implicit notion that these are private pictures, is ok? Because please dear god tell me that you're talking about the peeing in the street or something, and that was just a poor quote placement? There's a difference between going to a nude beach, where you have an expectation of nudity vs. being in the street and taking out your penis. If you're doing this repeatedly, then you have been repeatedly exposing your genitals to people who have not consented to the exposure. There's a gigantic difference. Nudity and being happy with your body and happy with the body of others is fine. The thing about nude beaches is that they are not sexual. People are not creepy at nude beaches. I'm asking you to engage in a thought experiment. I'm wondering where the line for child porn begins and ends for you -- because its complicated is just not a fine argument when it comes to legal systems. I think that judges should use discretion when it comes down to cases like the one you're talking about, but they only have to use discretion because it is still child pornography by definition.
    - Oletros 10y ago
      > You think that sharing pictures of people under 18, who have given the implicit notion that these are private pictures, is ok? Do you have problems with reading comprehension? Tell me were the heck I have said that it is good to share the pictures?

by Oletros 10y ago

nostrebored 10y ago

Your comment is orthogonal to the situation posed by the GP. And I would say that if you're an 18yo who's looking at child pornography you should not be around children, especially those to whom you have unfettered access to as a parent/guardian. >When a 18 years person can be guilty of sex offending by having ex with his/her 17 old partner we have a problem I'm not arguing that Romeo and Juliet laws are a bad thing (even though I think that some state's implementations are too generous -- Georgia's laws effectively mean you can be a college freshman sleeping with high school freshmen). But when you're in the position that you're an 18yo with nude pictures of a minor, you do effectively have child porn. You should know well enough by that point to delete it. You are an adult. A non trivial number of these pictures do end up on the internet. Do you think that you should be a sex offender if as an 18yo you disseminate a picture of your 16yo partner? Do you think we should have a separate tier of images that are by definition child porn, but because of who possesses them they are not considered to be child porn? This will assuredly help actual offenders avoid the consequences of their actions.

DanBC 10y ago
Actual offenders have large collections of images of child sexual abuse. They don't have a few images of someone close to their age that they're in a relationship with. Sexting is a serious problem, and there are elements of abuse around it (some children coerce others into providing these images, for example). But treating all children who have nude images as sex offenders doesn't help the victims; it doesn't help the other children; and crucially it diverts law enforcement attention away from more serious offenders.
- nostrebored 10y ago
  How do you define 'close to your age'? Does not being in a relationship suddenly make it child porn in your eyes? Also 'actual offenders' seems to imply that those who don't have large collections aren't actual offenders? I don't care if you dabble in child porn, the fact is that by viewing and spreading this videos you do create a demand for more to be created. You are complicit in the exploitation and abuse of children. Also, repeat exposure has been shown to dispose you to be more likely to abuse children yourself. And sure, the legal system should have some ability to use discretion. But the age of consent is there for a reason. We as a society have agreed that non-adults are incapable of consenting to a sexual relationship. As an aside, you don't have to look very hard to find examples of people sharing sexts with their friends. It even came up in the Brock Turner case not too long ago. When these pictures are of children/people under 18, that is by definition dissemination of child pornography. The ages of the other parties being shown a picture does not matter.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - unclenoriega 10y ago
    Your comments point out a lot of issues with how to handle nude images of minors. I think the problem a lot of people have is that the legal system _does_ have some ability to use discretion but for whatever reason does not in many instances.
Oletros 10y ago
> But when you're in the position that you're an 18yo with nude pictures of a minor, you do effectively have child porn I would like to know why you're so radical in this topic. Perhaps because I'm not American and attitude to sex here is not so puritan I can't understand it. In the beach promenade we have a nudist beach, two meters apart, everyone, including child can see nude men and women, or other child, and nobody cares about it, they see it as normal. I can see a lot of women breastfeeding in public and nobody cares. The charges someone can face for peeing in the street is for uncivic behaviour (normally 30€), but they are not charged for a sexual offense. > A non trivial number of these pictures do end up on the internet. Do you think that you should be a sex offender if as an 18yo you disseminate a picture of your 16yo partner? You're always taking the worst case. The problem is when your 18 years old have pictures in his phone of his 17 years old partner and he/she is guilty of having sex porn.
- nostrebored 10y ago
  You think that sharing pictures of people under 18, who have given the implicit notion that these are private pictures, is ok? Because please dear god tell me that you're talking about the peeing in the street or something, and that was just a poor quote placement? There's a difference between going to a nude beach, where you have an expectation of nudity vs. being in the street and taking out your penis. If you're doing this repeatedly, then you have been repeatedly exposing your genitals to people who have not consented to the exposure. There's a gigantic difference. Nudity and being happy with your body and happy with the body of others is fine. The thing about nude beaches is that they are not sexual. People are not creepy at nude beaches. I'm asking you to engage in a thought experiment. I'm wondering where the line for child porn begins and ends for you -- because its complicated is just not a fine argument when it comes to legal systems. I think that judges should use discretion when it comes down to cases like the one you're talking about, but they only have to use discretion because it is still child pornography by definition.
  - Oletros 10y ago
    > You think that sharing pictures of people under 18, who have given the implicit notion that these are private pictures, is ok? Do you have problems with reading comprehension? Tell me were the heck I have said that it is good to share the pictures?