4 ms·

I've long wondered what would happen if "self produced" pornography saw its day in court. Afaik the exception pornography initially had which made it exist out

I've long wondered what would happen if "self produced" pornography saw its day in court. Afaik the exception pornography initially had which made it exist outside of sex work rules hinged on where the money came from. If it was from someone engaging in the act, then it's prostitution. If it's someone else, then it's acting. But arguably, the payment here is more direct so I honestly think it wouldn't be obvious. The customers are paying for the purpose of potentially live sex work merely with a barrier of technology between them. I'd imagine it's the same as the peep shows where someone pays to enter a booth to watch a promised tantalizing performance with a transparent barrier between the participants, but I really don't know. The second interesting thing is about teenagers. The original argument again, relied on two models: one where the person is getting paid by a participant, which is seen as abuse, and the second method where they may or may not be paid but an adult is doing the recording and distribution, which is seen as exploitation. But what if it's the teenager themselves that turn on the camera and presses record entirely on their own? The exploitation and abuse arguments no longer hold so I'd imagine that this too may not be so obvious. The argument that it's illegal to consume or possess the material may still hold if the method of production can't be demonstrated but what about to produce and distribute the content? I certainly would have pursued an amateur career as a teenager for extra money if it was available. Also, if the content was still floating around now, 20 years later, the only thing I'd feel would be extremely flattered.

DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
There's plenty of cases of kids being charged with, and convicted of, production of child pornography by sharing nude selfies on Snapchat: https://www.vice.com/en/article/bjvnx3/minors-can-be-convicted-of-child-porn-for-sending-nude-selfies-court-rules https://www.vice.com/en/article/bjvnx3/minors-can-be-convict...
- vmception 6y ago
  Should have went with a first amendment challenge in federal court. Silly state legislatures. If only these defendants had money.
  - DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
    > Should have went with a first amendment challenge in federal court The nature of the case in-question is clearly one of obscenity (the subject was sexually harassing someone else, which is definitely not protected by first-amendment rights). As a WA resident myself, I'm disappointed in the judgement (though that depends on what the State Supreme Court's role is - it's unclear to me if they were deciding what the law said or if they were deciding what was just in the circumstances - kinda like how the US Supreme Court will decide if a given law is constitutional or not, regardless of how just or actually necessary that law is for a well-functioning society - this wouldn't be as big a problem if the US would end its sacrosanct, holy-text treatment of the Constitution - I used to admire and revel in the simplicity of a short written, principled, constitution - but now that I'm older, wiser and far more cynical I feel the other countries' approach of "the law IS the constitution" makes it easier to be responsive and reactive without necessarily betraying any long-standing principles.
    - vmception 6y ago
      It looks to me like the state Supreme Court just deferred to the legislatures and assumed what they meant It wasn’t argued on Washington or Federal constitutional free speech grounds I think they totally could challenge in Federal Court whether the state legislature’s interest in protection outweighed the individual minor’s 1st amendment rights, punting it back to the state trial court to convict only on the harassment grounds
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- kristopolous 6y ago
  Interesting. This seems rather bizarre. The whole sex crime framework needs to be fundamentally revisited. Someone taking a photo of themselves to share privately with someone sounds in the clear. When these laws were written someone would have had to process the film themself, make a print, address an envelope and put it in the mail. A teenager doing that for a casual recipient sounds like some outlandish stunt in a John Waters film. The courts and legislatures can be forgiven for not having accommodated for such things. However we now live in clearly different times. It's almost like the political fallout would be so severe that neither judges nor politicians are willing to exercise the political capital so everyone stays in the lane no matter how absurd things get. Being called a "pro-pedophilia" candidate for claiming teenagers shouldn't become sex-offending criminals for taking photographs of themselves would be a daunting attack to work through. In a position of power I'd probably also assess it's not worth the political capital and stick with the program as well. Maybe there needs to be a more favorable case like say, a secretly sexually active teenager uses an online medical service to send photographs about a possible infection and their over-reacting zealous parents find out, become outraged, and try to sue the medical service for possessing underage content.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
cortesoft 6y ago
If there is no physical contact, how is what happens different than a strip club? I think prostitution requires physical contact.
- koolba 6y ago
  Depends on the State. In some full nude is not allowed. Others it’s only allowed if alcohol isn’t served. Others not at all.
  - VectorLock 6y ago
    Which states have laws that define prostitution as not requiring physical contact?
    - jachee 6y ago
      Parent was talking about strip club laws, not prostitution laws.
      - VectorLock 6y ago
        Parent of parent was talking about the difference between stripping and prostituion.
        jachee 6y ago
        Nope. That post was asking about the difference between stripping in a club, and streaming sex work on the web.
        VectorLock 6y ago
        >If there is no physical contact, how is what happens different than a strip club? I think prostitution requires physical contact.
        6y ago
Zenbit_UX 6y ago
> Afaik the exception pornography initially had which made it exist outside of sex work rules hinged on where the money came from. If it was from someone engaging in the act, then it's prostitution. If it's someone else, then it's acting. At the risk of stating the obvious here I'm pretty sure the difference was whether it was filmed or not.

DaiPlusPlus 6y ago

There's plenty of cases of kids being charged with, and convicted of, production of child pornography by sharing nude selfies on Snapchat: https://www.vice.com/en/article/bjvnx3/minors-can-be-convicted-of-child-porn-for-sending-nude-selfies-court-rules https://www.vice.com/en/article/bjvnx3/minors-can-be-convict...

vmception 6y ago
Should have went with a first amendment challenge in federal court. Silly state legislatures. If only these defendants had money.
- DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
  > Should have went with a first amendment challenge in federal court The nature of the case in-question is clearly one of obscenity (the subject was sexually harassing someone else, which is definitely not protected by first-amendment rights). As a WA resident myself, I'm disappointed in the judgement (though that depends on what the State Supreme Court's role is - it's unclear to me if they were deciding what the law said or if they were deciding what was just in the circumstances - kinda like how the US Supreme Court will decide if a given law is constitutional or not, regardless of how just or actually necessary that law is for a well-functioning society - this wouldn't be as big a problem if the US would end its sacrosanct, holy-text treatment of the Constitution - I used to admire and revel in the simplicity of a short written, principled, constitution - but now that I'm older, wiser and far more cynical I feel the other countries' approach of "the law IS the constitution" makes it easier to be responsive and reactive without necessarily betraying any long-standing principles.
  - vmception 6y ago
    It looks to me like the state Supreme Court just deferred to the legislatures and assumed what they meant It wasn’t argued on Washington or Federal constitutional free speech grounds I think they totally could challenge in Federal Court whether the state legislature’s interest in protection outweighed the individual minor’s 1st amendment rights, punting it back to the state trial court to convict only on the harassment grounds
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
kristopolous 6y ago
Interesting. This seems rather bizarre. The whole sex crime framework needs to be fundamentally revisited. Someone taking a photo of themselves to share privately with someone sounds in the clear. When these laws were written someone would have had to process the film themself, make a print, address an envelope and put it in the mail. A teenager doing that for a casual recipient sounds like some outlandish stunt in a John Waters film. The courts and legislatures can be forgiven for not having accommodated for such things. However we now live in clearly different times. It's almost like the political fallout would be so severe that neither judges nor politicians are willing to exercise the political capital so everyone stays in the lane no matter how absurd things get. Being called a "pro-pedophilia" candidate for claiming teenagers shouldn't become sex-offending criminals for taking photographs of themselves would be a daunting attack to work through. In a position of power I'd probably also assess it's not worth the political capital and stick with the program as well. Maybe there needs to be a more favorable case like say, a secretly sexually active teenager uses an online medical service to send photographs about a possible infection and their over-reacting zealous parents find out, become outraged, and try to sue the medical service for possessing underage content.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

cortesoft 6y ago

If there is no physical contact, how is what happens different than a strip club? I think prostitution requires physical contact.

koolba 6y ago
Depends on the State. In some full nude is not allowed. Others it’s only allowed if alcohol isn’t served. Others not at all.
- VectorLock 6y ago
  Which states have laws that define prostitution as not requiring physical contact?
  - jachee 6y ago
    Parent was talking about strip club laws, not prostitution laws.
    - VectorLock 6y ago
      Parent of parent was talking about the difference between stripping and prostituion.
      - jachee 6y ago
        Nope. That post was asking about the difference between stripping in a club, and streaming sex work on the web.
        VectorLock 6y ago
        >If there is no physical contact, how is what happens different than a strip club? I think prostitution requires physical contact.
        6y ago

Zenbit_UX 6y ago

> Afaik the exception pornography initially had which made it exist outside of sex work rules hinged on where the money came from. If it was from someone engaging in the act, then it's prostitution. If it's someone else, then it's acting. At the risk of stating the obvious here I'm pretty sure the difference was whether it was filmed or not.