3 ms·

It may not be what the article is specifically about, but I'm willing to bet that a large majority of the "child porn" on services like SC are teen to teen, and

It may not be what the article is specifically about, but I'm willing to bet that a large majority of the "child porn" on services like SC are teen to teen, and in fact teens are being convicted as sex offenders for taking pictures of themselves.

Aloha 9y ago
Whats weird to me is the meeting point of where sex between two people is legal, but them taking pictures of each other naked is a felony.. there is a lack of common sense being applied here.
- jjjensen90 9y ago
  Right, age of consent is 16 in most of the US, so you could meet up and do all sorts of things, but if you take a picture of your consensual sex you are a felon. Hmmmmmm...
  - tcd 9y ago
    The law makes sense though from one perspective, as silly as this sounds. Having sex is far less worse than a video/picture of you naked, which may exist on the internet for a very, very long time. Think Amanda Todd and it being used as blackmail; the added threat of it being child porn is a real turn off. Of course you then wonder how much can change in just 2 years, but if you're legally an adult, and you consented to the image, it won't be classed as child porn, but revenge porn laws are a thing. But the easiest solution is not to consent to being filmed/photographed if you don't want to be...With how google photos uploads automatically the second you take a picture I don't trust smartphones these days...
    - jjjensen90 9y ago
      I'm not sure a picture of you on the internet is a bigger responsibility to assume than creating a child, so I don't really think the law makes that much sense even in that perspective. If we're honest, a lot of the laws were made so far away from the context of the current internet/smartphone culture that they are pretty much useless unless seriously reconsidered (and probably do a lot of immoral harm the way they are written right now).
- arise 9y ago
  The law correctly anticipates that teenagers would get it on. It did not anticipate that they would create and exchange explicit images of themselves. In retrospect, that's an obviously bad assumption, but it wasn't so obvious when photography required high cost/skills/turnaround time. It was assumed that photographer/exploiter and subject/victim were different. Not sure how you fix it (other than to educate youth and setup technical blocks). I suspect in most cases that police, prosecutors, and other adults "apply common sense", but some prosecutors will do anything to get re-elected (a nude selfie doesn't necessarily ruin a teen's life, but a criminal conviction for it surely will).
draw_down 9y ago
So? The majority of anything is probably not criminal. This is about the portion that is.

Aloha 9y ago

Whats weird to me is the meeting point of where sex between two people is legal, but them taking pictures of each other naked is a felony.. there is a lack of common sense being applied here.

jjjensen90 9y ago
Right, age of consent is 16 in most of the US, so you could meet up and do all sorts of things, but if you take a picture of your consensual sex you are a felon. Hmmmmmm...
- tcd 9y ago
  The law makes sense though from one perspective, as silly as this sounds. Having sex is far less worse than a video/picture of you naked, which may exist on the internet for a very, very long time. Think Amanda Todd and it being used as blackmail; the added threat of it being child porn is a real turn off. Of course you then wonder how much can change in just 2 years, but if you're legally an adult, and you consented to the image, it won't be classed as child porn, but revenge porn laws are a thing. But the easiest solution is not to consent to being filmed/photographed if you don't want to be...With how google photos uploads automatically the second you take a picture I don't trust smartphones these days...
  - jjjensen90 9y ago
    I'm not sure a picture of you on the internet is a bigger responsibility to assume than creating a child, so I don't really think the law makes that much sense even in that perspective. If we're honest, a lot of the laws were made so far away from the context of the current internet/smartphone culture that they are pretty much useless unless seriously reconsidered (and probably do a lot of immoral harm the way they are written right now).
arise 9y ago
The law correctly anticipates that teenagers would get it on. It did not anticipate that they would create and exchange explicit images of themselves. In retrospect, that's an obviously bad assumption, but it wasn't so obvious when photography required high cost/skills/turnaround time. It was assumed that photographer/exploiter and subject/victim were different. Not sure how you fix it (other than to educate youth and setup technical blocks). I suspect in most cases that police, prosecutors, and other adults "apply common sense", but some prosecutors will do anything to get re-elected (a nude selfie doesn't necessarily ruin a teen's life, but a criminal conviction for it surely will).

draw_down 9y ago

So? The majority of anything is probably not criminal. This is about the portion that is.