19 ms·
Court OKs child porn prosecution of minors distributing pictures of themselves
- quuquuquu 9y agoEverything is a crime in our neo-puritan state. Congrats, two 17 year olds sending pictures of themselves consentually = child porn. What I also couldn't understand from the article: A picture of someone who is an adult, but is /pretending/ to be a minor is also child pornography? What?! Pornhub.com will need to take a hard look at some of its content providers then. Or does it not apply to Montreal based companies? What if the servers are in the US? What if the client is in the US? Lunacy.
- ikeboy 9y agoThis is about a 17 year old sending a picture to an adult non-consensually - the court declined to rule on whether "two 17 year olds sending pictures of themselves consensually" would be the same. "Pretending to be a minor" would have 1st amendment protections as per previous cases.
- quuquuquu 9y agoSheesh, I need to get my eyes checked!! Thank you for clarifying. Is it me or was this densely worded?
- ikeboy 9y agoHalf the article is just a quote from the court. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/09/teen-sends-dick-pic-to-22-year-old-now-hes-a-child-pornographer/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/09/teen-sends-dick-... is more readable, probably.
- zaroth 9y agoMuch better read, thanks. Mods might want to update the link?
- thaumasiotes 9y ago> This is about a 17 year old sending a picture to an adult non-consensually - the court declined to rule on whether "two 17 year olds sending pictures of themselves consensually" would be the same. But, from the OP: >> The case itself involved a 17-year-old sending “an unsolicited picture of his erect penis” to an apparently unwilling recipient, but the logic of the court’s reasoning applies even when the recipient is pleased to receive the photo. The court does say that, “because [Gray] was not a minor sending sexually explicit images to another consenting minor, we decline to analyze such a situation,” but I think that — given the logic of the majority opinion — the analysis would have to end up the same way; nothing in the majority’s reasoning turns on the presence of an unwilling recipient.
- kakarot 9y agoCame into this thread kinda pissed, but after reading more about the case... it's wrong to send unsolicited nudes of yourself to someone no matter how old you are. The kid should definitely receive some kind of reprimanding. Jail? I don't think institutionalizing someone's mind over something like this is healthy... maybe just counseling? And that being said, one must imagine how differently the case might have been handled had the genders of the involved persons been switched.
- ikeboy 9y agoWhat they did was wrong, but it shouldn't be prosecuted under child porn laws. They should get whatever punishment they'd get if they did the same at 18, under whatever harassment laws apply.
- kakarot 9y agoI think on one hand you are correct, but if the court wants to claim that a child is not old enough to consensually produce pornographic imagery of themselves, they must also admit that a child who takes and sends the images to another has not fully developed their reasoning skills. Same reason that minors usually get a break from the law when committing vandalism, assault, etc. So they should not get the same exact punishment, which is why I suggested counseling because unnecessary institutionalization of children is a predatory method of creating repeat offenders.
- readams 9y agoThe 17-year-old did it consensually. The adult did not solicit the pics. That is, the "victim" here is also the perpetrator.
- nebulous1 9y agoYou picked up the adult pretending to be a minor bit wrong. "However, the Court found the prohibition of images that appear to be, but are not actually, minors improper" They found the prohibition to be improper. It's oddly phrased.
- kevin_thibedeau 9y agoThey're referring to the (still?) banned practice of photoshopping a minor's face onto an adult body.
- cperciva 9y agoNever mind adults pretending to be children. In some jurisdictions, child pornography includes cartoons. In one case, Simpsons fanfic.
- astura 9y agoBut TFA says otherwise >In Free Speech Coalition, the Supreme Court struck down a law that banned sexually explicit depictions of minors, as well as depictions that appeared to be minors. These included computer generated images and depictions of legal adults pretending to be minors. The Court recognized that the First Amendment “does not embrace certain categories of speech, including … pornography produced with real children.” However, the Court found the prohibition of images that appear to be, but are not actually, minors improper; any harm stemming from those false images “does not necessarily follow from the speech, but depends upon some unquantified potential for subsequent criminal acts." Unless I'm reading it wrong.
- ikeboy 9y agoThere are stories from other countries but not in the US since that referenced Supreme Court case afaik.
- etplayer 9y agoIt was stricken down at the federal level. I believe that laws still exist against it at the state level. Their validity, to my knowledge, has not been questioned as of yet. However there are such laws which remain, and in fact have been recently introduced, in Canada, England & Wales, Northern Ireland, Rep. of Ireland, New Zealand, Australia, and various European countries. What's perhaps even more concerning is that even stories are illegal in Canada. The mere possession of the material, i.e a drawing that you made yourself is illegal in England. Publishing a story or even sexual roleplaying with another adult over the Internet might find you sentenced under the Obscene Publications Act. It's hideous in my view and such laws deserve to be stricken down with ferocity.
- DanBC 9y ago
- eighthnate 9y ago> Everything is a crime in our neo-puritan state. What is strange is how today's puritanism is coming from the left rather than the right. Growing up as kid, I remember christians and conservatives attacking "Married with Children", "Simpsons", "Beavis and Butthead", "Southpark", etc. Even as an elementary kid, I remember associating christians/conservatives with censorship and for most of my life identified myself as a liberal. The past few years, I've given up on liberals too as they are now pushing their form of censorship under the aegis of "social justice". > Congrats, two 17 year olds sending pictures of themselves consentually = child porn. It's even worse that isn't it? If a 17 year old takes a picture of herself on a smartphone and sends it to herself on her other accounts, then she's guilty of distributing child porn. Technically, isn't she guilty of distributing child porn of herself to herself?
- quuquuquu 9y agoRe: your last point, I hope the God I don't believe in helps us... At this point, if they spend time going after people for that type of technicality, then it's only a matter of time before they get all of us in prison for something. 70m people in the USA have a criminal record of some kind. The more victimless crimes we have, the more power we will lose.
- nine_k 9y agoIt's because the leftism in the US comes from the puritanism, not the other way around. Most of the social justice ideas, some of the key tenets of the left ideology, have obvious parallels in Christianity. (And if you think that the animosity between many churches and most leftists refutes this, remember how different Christian confessions liked each other 100 years ago, let alone 400 years ago.)
- loeg 9y agoI believe you are mischaracterizing all liberals as a group.
- snakeanus 9y ago> What is strange is how today's puritanism is coming from the left rather than the right. From both actually, take the UK for example, the anime=CP law was made under a right-wing government.
- TazeTSchnitzel 9y agoBecause of the potential for selective or punitive prosecution I'm in favour of legalising teen sexting. Obviously the law needs to be carefully drafted to avoid allowing child exploitation, but it should absolutely not be possible to prosecute normal sexually-active teens under child pornography statutes. “Trust us, we'd never use it against the people it's supposed to protect” isn't enough.
- bsder 9y agoSo, child porn is legal as long as both parties are involved? That doesn't work either. All you will wind up doing is having people magically always have only two people involved. And "teen sexting" isn't even uniform: a 10-year-old sexting a 16-year-old is generally a problem while a 17-year-old sexting an 18-year-old likely isn't. Your opponents in kiddie porn are two different sets of people: 1) the egregiously stupid, generally teenagers, who may or may not be malicious about it and 2) the horrifically competent and malicious who WILL find a way to exploit any loophole. Group 2 is what makes child pornography laws so problematic. Anything you do to strengthen your ability to get Group 2 generally increases the collateral damage in Group 1. This is exactly what "prosecutorial discretion" is supposed to be used for. Unfortunately, it seems that "prosecutorial discretion" is now mostly "scoring poltical points for election."
- mediocrejoker 9y agoWhich is better, to have a few horrifically competent go free or have a few innocent teenagers on the sex offender registry?
- jfaucett 9y agoWhat is the rationale behind defining child porn age < 18? I think most would agree there is a profound difference between a 23 year old dating a 17 year old and a 50 year old having anything sexual to do with an 8 year old. There are worlds of moral difference here. The first case is something that actually happened to a friend of mine. He was 23 and dating a 17 year old, got convicted, sent to prison, and is now labeled a sex offender for life. Are there any countries out there that take a sane approach to this moral conundrum?
- thaumasiotes 9y ago> What is the rationale behind defining child porn age < 18? This is actually known (as to the USA). When the law was passed, pornography producers didn't have to keep records of their models. The goal of setting the legal threshold at 18 was to make it really, really easy to convince a jury that a model who was e.g. 12 was below the legal threshold. It wasn't expected that photos of 16-year-olds would be prevented, because if all you're going on is a photo, they aren't easy to distinguish from 18-year-olds.
- AlexCoventry 9y agoGot a cite?
- mabbo 9y ago> Are there any countries out there that take a sane approach to this moral conundrum? Most of the rest of the world actually.
- Avshalom 9y agoSome states have a (I think it's called) Romeo and Juliet law that does in fact protect say 19yo dating 16yo or some range depending on the state.
- s4vi0r 9y agoIn Canada its within 2 years for 12 (or 13?) year olds (I.e. a 10/11 year old can consent with a 12/13 year old) and within 5 years for 14/15 year olds. Though I'm not sure if that covers self distribution of cp (e.g. if a 14 year old sends some nudes to another 14 year old)
- ikeboy 9y agoShould note the sentence here was 30 days + community service.
- matt4077 9y agoI could easily see 30 days in jail being a traumatic experience that could ruins someone's life, especially if jails are as violent as often portrait. It's a complete miscarriage of justice: throwing a minor in jail, using a law supposedly created to protect minors. It could only be more cynical if they tried them as an adult–I didn't check, for fear of what I may discover.
- readams 9y agoThe real punishment in cases like this is sex offender registration and a record, which is basically the end of your life.
- gozur88 9y agoIs he on the sex offender list, though? I'd rather go to jail for a few years than end up on that list.
- ikeboy 9y agoA few years is pretty rough, and you'd probably be a felon then anyway. Is that really better than being on a sex offender list?
- c3534l 9y agoThe ruling is correct, but the law is stupid.
- sethammons 9y agoJury Nullification is always an option.
- c3534l 9y agoThere was no jury. This was a Supreme Court ruling.
- odammit 9y agoGuilty or not could you imagine the rest of his life. At an interview "so I googled you... what's this about the Supreme Court having a ruling over your dick pic, brah" Better start his own business or get to flipping them burgz.
- ikeboy 9y agoYou can change your name to avoid it coming up in Google, but would still show up on a background check, I think.
- odammit 9y agoUntil you get to that "previously used names" line on the walmart application. Woof. That's gonna be a tough life.
- return0 9y agowhy is a dick pic such a big deal?
- jliptzin 9y agoBecause of religious people, mainly
- odammit 9y agoWell Snapchat is surely screwed. There goes their second most popular snap after putting cat ears on a fidget spinner.
- heartles 9y agoImplying that Snapchat is mostly for sexting is doing a disservice to the platform, isn't it? In my experience (which is just an anecdote, idk if there are stats on this) Snapchat has been ~95% showing dumb jokes to friends
- ringaroundthetx 9y agothere are a lot of things high schoolers can get in trouble for if people reported it fortunately most people don't report it minefield out there also, stop sending dick pics to women
- 21 9y agoWhat other things that you can do to yourself are illegal? Suicide. Abortion in some places. What if I cut a piece of my body and eat it, is that cannibalism?
- whipoodle 9y agoDrugs
- mirimir 9y agoSadly enough. But hey, having fun is immoral.
- mrsteveman1 9y ago> What if I cut a piece of my body and eat it, is that cannibalism? I think at that point, you're likely to be involuntarily committed anyway :)
- dllthomas 9y agoWhat if it's a fingernail?
- Udik 9y agoIf I'm not wrong (but I might be), in some parts of the US you can get drunk, have consensual sex with somebody, and the day after somebody else can claim that you have been raped, as you were too drunk to consent.
- PhasmaFelis 9y agoI don't think you can press a rape charge without the consent of the alleged victim, assuming the victim is a competent adult. Anyone can claim you were raped, but if you stand up and say "bullshit", then nothing can come of it legally.
- Udik 9y ago
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- zaroth 9y agoThe idea that it is constitutional to charge someone with a felony for taking a picture of their own body is absurd. The judges were just too chicken to strike the entire statute. Actually, my apologies, that's unfair to the chicken.
- zaroth 9y agoLet me add - transmitting a photo of your genitals to someone uninvited is pretty awful, and should be illegal for a completely different reason. So no mistake about this guy. The bigger question is if it was intended to be received by the adult, are they both guilty? Or just the adult at that point? It seems to me the biggest hinge with this case is that the recipient didn't want the pic and actually called the cops herself. Would be much more satisfying if they would have charged and proven that he assaulted the woman and just stuck with that. The courts are saying there must be a legislative fix. What's the chance they actually fix it?
- kelnos 9y ago> transmitting a photo of your genitals to someone uninvited is pretty awful, and should be illegal for a completely different reason. We should really cover this sort of thing under the existing indecent exposure laws.
- aiyodev 9y agoIt's not the act of taking the photo. It's the act of distributing the photo that's being discussed.
- yeukhon 9y agoYet the distribution between two consent minors are not as scary as an adult sending it to a child. Yes, we have to educate children there are other ways to explore sexuality, not enlist them as sex offender for life?
- ringaroundthetx 9y agoIn this case, it was the transmission that was the qualifier.
- thanksgiving 9y agoI'll be the bad guy here and say that these laws should all just go away. It is just too convenient to plant "evidence" be it alcohol, drugs, or this. The idea that minors cannot consent is correct. Children are not a scaled small version of adults. They need to develop not just grow physically and children are vulnerable. We need to protect vulnerable members of our society. However, like with so many things in life, we've gone too far though. We need to scale back this stupidity be it "for the children" or "terrorism" or "drugs are bad". There's a quote about doing the same thing and expecting different results which I can't remember off the top of my head but to me all of this: including the drama against marriage and abortion feels like bread and circus to get people occupied with silliness.
- jliptzin 9y agoIt's horrifyingly easy to frame someone for CP. There are even people advertising on onion sites to frame someone remotely for as little as $300.
- justonepost 9y agoIt's not easy to frame someone successfully, the law is pretty careful about stuff like this. However you could probably get someone fired or develop a bad rep.
- JustSomeNobody 9y agoBut that’s the thing, if you get their name in the media, true or not, they’re ruined. People NEVER believe someone accused of These types of crimes are innocent.
- aiyodev 9y agoJust being investigated, losing all electronics, losing your job, losing friends, losing family, living in fear for months is bad enough that a framing is probably considered successful in the eyes of the framer whether or not it results in a trial. It's like you're saying the rape doesn't count if nobody gets pregnant.
- gamad 9y agoYou HAVE to prosecute them. If you didn't, a child could send a naked photo of himself to all his teachers, call the FBI, and see them all arrested (there's no defense against possession.)
- crb002 9y agoDidn't Ron/Rand Paul have a proposed bill to limit punitive action on structural crimes (crimes committed structurally due to them being under age): this, alcohol in possession of minor, curfew violations, ... ?
- dv_dt 9y agoThis is a symptom of how I think Republicans and many neoliberal Democrats have basically reduced our government to systematically stop recognizing compassion as a function. All that is left is possession (property rights), and punishment (criminal enforcement). Charity and compassion are seen as some exotic thing that tend to belong in the personal sphere, not something that is a government function in society.
- whipoodle 9y agoWe are out of our minds.
- waqf 9y agoI cannot understand why Americans say "we" in statements like this. I'm not out of mine (at least not with respect to this issue) and you're quite likely not out of yours. It's not noble to take responsibility for things when you have no control over them and thus won't be able to fix them.
- aiyodev 9y agoIt's "we" as in "we the people". "We" are doing this because our elected representatives appointed the people who made the decision. "We" collectively bear the responsibility for what our government does. But there's a difference between responsibility and guilt. Unless we voted for someone and knew this would be the consequence, we shouldn't feel guilty.
- waqf 9y agoI know, but I disagree and, moreover, I consider that a harmful belief. The problem isn't that not every citizen of a democracy will agree with the majority preference (I think people understand that caveat), it's that even the majority preference of the population on a single issue is, for many reasons, likely not what gets through the political process. The "we" wording sweeps all these limitations of democracy comprehensively under the rug: it diverts blame onto the people when it should rightly be directed at the existing political order.
- aiyodev 9y agoThe people in the "existing political order" are put there by the public who ultimately has the responsibility for creating good government. Again, responsibility is not the same as guilt.
- lisper 9y agoPreviously submitted: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15255290 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15255290
- pgnas 9y agoas a parent and also someone who was a child at one time I can see that kids make all kinds of mistakes. I mean, I seriously don't even ask why sometimes because I know the answer I'm going to get will not make any sense. I'm very lucky and I have some wonderful children I cannot see them going out and doing something like this however people do stupid things. I don't think charging someone with something that is going to stick with them for the rest of their life for something that they did when they were 13 ,14, 17 years old.. they are kids and their brains, hello all you scientists out of there, are not even fully developed. Listen, if a 17-year-old child sent an explicit image to my daughter I would be over at the parents house faster than you can imagine. That kid obviously needs a swift kick in the ass, he or she does not deserve to be charged with a crime will follow that person for life. If we continue to charge children as adults, kids that are 13,14,15 or 17, then we might as well change the age of when you are an adult to 13 years old. has anyone given any consideration to the crap that these kids are bombarded with on a moment by moment basis on television in music and all entertainment, it is hyper sexualized. What do you expect your children to do when they are faced with this? The sad situation and I don't agree with the stupid thing that this kid did in the stupid things the kids are going to do but they are kids! Come on now, haven't we seen cases recently where adult pedophiles have been let off? Are we going mad?
- jaclaz 9y agoAnd as a side note, someone has to consider how in some parts of the US you can legally drive a car at 14 or 15 (of course with some limitations, but not that many), at 16 or 17 you can get an airplane or helicopter pilot license, yet you become of age at 18 and you cannot drink beer or get an unrestricted commercial driver's license before turning 21. Somehow these age limits sound contrasting each other.
- will_brown 9y agoWhen I was in law school I worked on a Florida legislative project to bring forward a version of Romeo & Juliet laws to Florida [1]. For example there are cases where 17 year old girls become registered sex offenders for life due to relationships with their 16 year old boyfriends (whom they have married in some cases). These types of cases have made it to the SCOTUS. Challenging on the grounds of cruel and unusual punishment and double jeopardy, and upheld by the court. It goes without saying civil and criminal child abuse, neglect, and abondonment cases are as difficult as any to stomach. But there are famous case of parents with "bathtub" framed photos of their kids on their hallway walls and grandfathers with pictures of their grandchilds running through sprinklers, and as you might imagine they were painted as the devil incarnate. Our law clinic was very aware the issues of text messaging even then, 2006. At the time we used the Socratic method to debate the logic and human aspects of charging the young children guilty of originating "sext messages" of themselves. My position was always that such a law would chill the indemnity a victim needs to come forward. One of the major issues is that many of these crimes are under the strict liability [2] standard meaning if the pictures exist, the defendant is guilty, notwithstanding their intent. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_rape#Romeo_and_Juliet_laws https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_rape#Romeo_and_Jul... [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability
- mirimir 9y agoThis was predictable, no? I mean, all those damn preteen cam whores! And wannabe cam whores. And kids, having fun. So what, in a decade or so, an appreciable percentage of young people will be labeled as child pornographers?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- Chiba-City 9y agoWhy "prosecution" and not "investigation." There's a difference. It depends upon an audience. What about self portraits? That's how photographers learn. I had a Canonet and black and white film as a kid. I loved it. Asking questions doesn't have threaten kids. Good kids will answer good questions. Have I missed something?
- pharrington 9y ago"the Court found the prohibition of images that appear to be, but are not actually, minors improper; any harm stemming from those false images “does not necessarily follow from the speech, but depends upon some unquantified potential for subsequent criminal acts.”" Washington SC: "He claims any potential harm in his case is just as attenuated and vague as Free Speech Coalition. Because no harm was done, he should have the same right as any adult to take voluntary photographs of his own body. We do not find this argument persuasive." Am I correct in reading this as the court basically saying "The defendant presents a solid argument. We don't care." ??
- myrandomcomment 9y agoThis is 100% mis-read of what this said. The court said "this is the way the law is written, it sucks, but this is the law as written."
- myrandomcomment 9y agoAlso as a follow up - this is our fault. We elect the people that write the laws. The courts job it is to check the law constitutional. We have this illusion that the court is there to think better then those we elect, which is not the case. If you are outraged by this then pay some attention to who you vote for.
- ada1981 9y agoI imagine this would also apply if a child took photos of himself and then later, as an adult, sent those photos to someone?
- microcolonel 9y ago> He claims any potential harm in his case is just as attenuated and vague as Free Speech Coalition. Because no harm was done, he should have the same right as any adult to take voluntary photographs of his own body. We do not find this argument persuasive. Given how persuasive this argument is, I am a bit surprised that the court was not persuaded. I understand that Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition has some distinguishing factors, like the fact that the depictions in question were clearly distinguishable from records of a crime (on account of them not being photographic images of actual minors). This is a messy and complicated business, it seems like there needs to be a legislative solution since the supreme court can not find what most people consider a just outcome in an interpretation of the statute.
- dingo_bat 9y agoSince almost all of us agree that sexual preference is something that is innate, we cannot consciously affect it significantly, isn't it wrong to prosecute pedophiles? IMO, these people should be treated with pity, not as criminals. If we do that, all these absurdities will disappear automatically. Of course, coercion is still illegal, and coercion of a minor would carry higher criminal penalties. But distribution of content does not automatically imply coercion or violence. But sentencing somebody to prison for looking at cp is akin to sending gay people to prison.
- totalZero 9y ago> Since almost all of us agree that sexual preference is something that is innate Whatever one's opinion may be, it's pretty difficult to arrive at solid conclusions if the premise is such a sweeping assumption.
- PhasmaFelis 9y agoI absolutely agree that we shouldn't prosecute people for being attracted to children. Seeking out and looking at live CP (as opposed to cartoons) is another matter, because looking at someone's naked body without their consent is always a violation. There will always be a grey area around age of consent, but we have to draw the line somewhere, and I'm quite comfortable with the idea that a 10-year-old cannot meaningfully consent to being in porn.
- mighty_bander 9y agoBut will they be tried as adults? That is the question.
- WCityMike 9y agoThe title of the piece is a bit click-baity, as the court opinion specifically states, as the article notes in its last paragraph, that “because [Gray] was not a minor sending sexually explicit images to another consenting minor, we decline to analyze such a situation.” The title is stated as a fact, wherein it is really the columnist's opinion: "I think that — given the logic of the majority opinion — the analysis would have to ... "