6 ms·

Everything 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 unde

Everything 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 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. "Pretending to be a minor" would have 1st amendment protections as per previous cases.
- quuquuquu 9y ago
  Sheesh, I need to get my eyes checked!! Thank you for clarifying. Is it me or was this densely worded?
  - ikeboy 9y ago
    Half 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 ago
      Much 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 ago
    Came 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 ago
      What 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 ago
        I 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.
    - thaumasiotes 9y ago
      Girls get prosecuted for producing "child" pornography of themselves too.
      - kakarot 9y ago
        Well what I mean is, I just wonder at the likelihood of the situation being reported in the first place, as well as whether the sentencing would be the same. This isn't any attempt at making a point but just general curiosity. It's like that episode of Seinfeld where they learn a sex offender moved into the neighborhood and went to confront the person, then found out it was a woman and immediately (and somehow understandably) lost their vitriol.
- readams 9y ago
  The 17-year-old did it consensually. The adult did not solicit the pics. That is, the "victim" here is also the perpetrator.
nebulous1 9y ago
You 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 ago
  They're referring to the (still?) banned practice of photoshopping a minor's face onto an adult body.
cperciva 9y ago
Never mind adults pretending to be children. In some jurisdictions, child pornography includes cartoons. In one case, Simpsons fanfic.
- astura 9y ago
  But 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 ago
    There are stories from other countries but not in the US since that referenced Supreme Court case afaik.
  - etplayer 9y ago
    It 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 ago
  Re: 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 ago
  It'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 ago
  I 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.

ikeboy 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. "Pretending to be a minor" would have 1st amendment protections as per previous cases.

quuquuquu 9y ago
Sheesh, I need to get my eyes checked!! Thank you for clarifying. Is it me or was this densely worded?
- ikeboy 9y ago
  Half 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 ago
    Much 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 ago
  Came 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 ago
    What 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 ago
      I 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.
  - thaumasiotes 9y ago
    Girls get prosecuted for producing "child" pornography of themselves too.
    - kakarot 9y ago
      Well what I mean is, I just wonder at the likelihood of the situation being reported in the first place, as well as whether the sentencing would be the same. This isn't any attempt at making a point but just general curiosity. It's like that episode of Seinfeld where they learn a sex offender moved into the neighborhood and went to confront the person, then found out it was a woman and immediately (and somehow understandably) lost their vitriol.
readams 9y ago
The 17-year-old did it consensually. The adult did not solicit the pics. That is, the "victim" here is also the perpetrator.

nebulous1 9y ago

You 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 ago
They're referring to the (still?) banned practice of photoshopping a minor's face onto an adult body.

cperciva 9y ago

Never mind adults pretending to be children. In some jurisdictions, child pornography includes cartoons. In one case, Simpsons fanfic.

astura 9y ago
But 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 ago
  There are stories from other countries but not in the US since that referenced Supreme Court case afaik.
- etplayer 9y ago
  It 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 ago
Re: 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 ago
It'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 ago
I 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.