4 ms·

> The clip depicted S.K. performing oral sex on an unknown man—a legal activity in Maryland, where the age of consent is 16. So how can it be child porn, if it

> The clip depicted S.K. performing oral sex on an unknown man—a legal activity in Maryland, where the age of consent is 16. So how can it be child porn, if it was legal? Edit: OK, so the laws need to change, so that whatever's legal to do is legal to distribute, and vice versa. Otherwise, there's too much injustice.

TylerE 7y ago
Because the child porn laws are federal, and have a hard age limit of 18.
scarejunba 7y ago
A sign of how times have changed from the crazy world of puritanism (when oral intercourse could be considered illegal) - you assume it is the clip that is legal. They're talking about the oral sex when they're referring to legality. It is, of course, obvious that distributing a video of a legal act can be illegal. For instance, there's the obvious thing that a 14 year old is legally allowed to masturbate. They are not then allowed to video themselves masturbating and then distribute the video.
- vageli 7y ago
  Does a 14 year old truly understand the gravity of the acts of filming and distribution here? I would argue against, and for that reason I find it hard to understand how courts could agree to the punishment when the agent of the crime is so obviously incompetent.
afthonos 7y ago
Pornography and sex are different things, with different laws regulating them. Videos of children (i.e anyone under 18) having sex are illegal in the vast majority of countries, irrespective of the age of consent.
mcv 7y ago
No, doing and distributing a video of it are completely different things. There's nothing wrong with children being naked to take a shower, for example, but distributing a video of naked children showering is completely different territory. I'd argue that intend and who it's shared with that matters a lot. A nudist family's holiday pictures might be harmless when it stays in the family, but turn into child porn when it ends up on sex sites. In general, I'd say that distributing any sex act involving someone else, without the consent of that other person, who needs to be adult enough to be able to give that consent, should be illegal.
- mirimir 7y ago
  > In general, I'd say that distributing any sex act involving someone else, without the consent of that other person, who needs to be adult enough to be able to give that consent, should be illegal. If all involved are old enough to give consent for sexual activity with each other, they're all arguably old enough to distribute video of it. Video of masturbation by someone too young to give consent would certainly be child porn. However, prosecuting them for distributing it seems absurd, because they were arguably also too young to be responsible for what they had done. Everyone else involved, at least those old enough to be responsible, should of course be prosecuted for child porn. Edit: typo
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

TylerE 7y ago

Because the child porn laws are federal, and have a hard age limit of 18.

scarejunba 7y ago

A sign of how times have changed from the crazy world of puritanism (when oral intercourse could be considered illegal) - you assume it is the clip that is legal. They're talking about the oral sex when they're referring to legality. It is, of course, obvious that distributing a video of a legal act can be illegal. For instance, there's the obvious thing that a 14 year old is legally allowed to masturbate. They are not then allowed to video themselves masturbating and then distribute the video.

vageli 7y ago
Does a 14 year old truly understand the gravity of the acts of filming and distribution here? I would argue against, and for that reason I find it hard to understand how courts could agree to the punishment when the agent of the crime is so obviously incompetent.

afthonos 7y ago

Pornography and sex are different things, with different laws regulating them. Videos of children (i.e anyone under 18) having sex are illegal in the vast majority of countries, irrespective of the age of consent.

mcv 7y ago

No, doing and distributing a video of it are completely different things. There's nothing wrong with children being naked to take a shower, for example, but distributing a video of naked children showering is completely different territory. I'd argue that intend and who it's shared with that matters a lot. A nudist family's holiday pictures might be harmless when it stays in the family, but turn into child porn when it ends up on sex sites. In general, I'd say that distributing any sex act involving someone else, without the consent of that other person, who needs to be adult enough to be able to give that consent, should be illegal.

mirimir 7y ago
> In general, I'd say that distributing any sex act involving someone else, without the consent of that other person, who needs to be adult enough to be able to give that consent, should be illegal. If all involved are old enough to give consent for sexual activity with each other, they're all arguably old enough to distribute video of it. Video of masturbation by someone too young to give consent would certainly be child porn. However, prosecuting them for distributing it seems absurd, because they were arguably also too young to be responsible for what they had done. Everyone else involved, at least those old enough to be responsible, should of course be prosecuted for child porn. Edit: typo

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]