6 ms·

The article starts off on the wrong foot. "Every right-thinking person abhors child pornography." Wrong. The way child porn is defined, I do not necessarily

The article starts off on the wrong foot. "Every right-thinking person abhors child pornography." Wrong. The way child porn is defined, I do not necessarily abhor it. One 17-year-old in a legal relationship [in case anyone out there thinks age of consent is 18 everywhere, google age of consent; you're in for a shock], taking nude photos of him/herself and sending them to his/her partner, is classified as "child porn" under current federal law. The average person, hearing "child porn", conjures images of minors being abducted and abused in some basement, or being abused by relatives. If only child porn laws were tailored that narrowly. (I completely agree with the main premise of the article, but this bill is hardly a new phenomenon. Pedophilia (technically pre-pubescent minors), ephebophilia (post-pubescent minors) and/or child porn has been one of the four horsemen of the infocalypse[1] for many years.) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalypse http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalyps...

walexander 15y ago
What's worse is even depictions of minors can be considered child pornography. I recall reading of one guy who was arrested for a drawing of Bart and Lisa Simpson. ＼(^o^)／ - This emoticon could be illegal if it depicts a minor. (Disclaimer: the emoticon is over 18)
- alttag 15y ago
  Interesting (for U.S. residents), considering SCOTUS' 2002 opinion in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, which upheld depictions in cases where actual children were not involved. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coaliti...
  - walexander 15y ago
    IANAL, but digging around your Wikipedia link suggests that the litmus test here is whether or not the material is to be considered "obscene". The law struct down in the case you linked was worked around by introducing the PROTECT Act, which clarified it as "obscene depictions" of minors. This so far has not been challenged, as apparently the guy I mentioned in the Simpsons' case just entered a plea bargain: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_cartoon_pornography_depicting_minors#United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_cartoon_pornogr...
daeken 15y ago
While I totally agree with your premise -- child pornography laws have been used in ridiculous ways, hurting teenagers in uncountable ways -- it's really tough to come up with a definition that's narrow enough to not be usable for ridiculous cases while still being able to go after the legitimately bad guys. For instance, if you define that even if every other qualification in the law is met, it's not child pornography if it's one partner in a legal relationship sending another a nude photo, you still have a couple problems: 1) It's legal, as far as I know, for an adult to date a minor less than 4 years younger than him/her in PA, so you'd make it legal for a 14 year old to send nude photos to an 18 year old -- is this acceptable? 2) What about people that intercept the photos, or something of that sort? This really isn't a cut-and-dry issue, I believe, but something needs to change.
- JoachimSchipper 15y ago
  If, by the people's consensus, it's legal for said 18-year old to have sex with said 14-year old, exactly why would it be illegal for said 18-year old to look at said 14-year old naked, in a photograph or otherwise[1]? As to your second point, wiretapping laws already exist. [1] I could actually see an argument along the lines of "the internet never forgets", "having nude photos of yourself online sucks", "14-year olds do stupid things and should be protected from themselves". However, it's not at all clear that destroying the 18-year old's life is the best way to "fix" this. (It's also quite possible to have different rules for supposedly private messages and public distribution.)
  - jonnathanson 15y ago
    The law gets interpreted very strictly and very literally around this subject. In fact, there has actually been a case where a 15-year-old girl was arrested for taking nude photos of herself and sharing them with others via chatrooms. She was charged with trafficking in child pornography, which is somewhat understandable. But she was also charged with exploitation of a minor, which seems a bit silly in this case (unless she had a split personality doing the photography?).
    - 15y ago
blhack 15y ago
>"Every right-thinking person abhors child pornography." Every right-thinking person abhors what they consider to be child pornography.
nomdeplume 15y ago
"Every right-thinking..." <--- The author is just covering his/her ass. Sort of like Descarte putting God in his meditation work.... he knows it is BS but he does not want to get hanged for his work.

walexander 15y ago

What's worse is even depictions of minors can be considered child pornography. I recall reading of one guy who was arrested for a drawing of Bart and Lisa Simpson. ＼(^o^)／ - This emoticon could be illegal if it depicts a minor. (Disclaimer: the emoticon is over 18)

alttag 15y ago
Interesting (for U.S. residents), considering SCOTUS' 2002 opinion in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, which upheld depictions in cases where actual children were not involved. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coaliti...
- walexander 15y ago
  IANAL, but digging around your Wikipedia link suggests that the litmus test here is whether or not the material is to be considered "obscene". The law struct down in the case you linked was worked around by introducing the PROTECT Act, which clarified it as "obscene depictions" of minors. This so far has not been challenged, as apparently the guy I mentioned in the Simpsons' case just entered a plea bargain: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_cartoon_pornography_depicting_minors#United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_cartoon_pornogr...

daeken 15y ago

While I totally agree with your premise -- child pornography laws have been used in ridiculous ways, hurting teenagers in uncountable ways -- it's really tough to come up with a definition that's narrow enough to not be usable for ridiculous cases while still being able to go after the legitimately bad guys. For instance, if you define that even if every other qualification in the law is met, it's not child pornography if it's one partner in a legal relationship sending another a nude photo, you still have a couple problems: 1) It's legal, as far as I know, for an adult to date a minor less than 4 years younger than him/her in PA, so you'd make it legal for a 14 year old to send nude photos to an 18 year old -- is this acceptable? 2) What about people that intercept the photos, or something of that sort? This really isn't a cut-and-dry issue, I believe, but something needs to change.

JoachimSchipper 15y ago
If, by the people's consensus, it's legal for said 18-year old to have sex with said 14-year old, exactly why would it be illegal for said 18-year old to look at said 14-year old naked, in a photograph or otherwise[1]? As to your second point, wiretapping laws already exist. [1] I could actually see an argument along the lines of "the internet never forgets", "having nude photos of yourself online sucks", "14-year olds do stupid things and should be protected from themselves". However, it's not at all clear that destroying the 18-year old's life is the best way to "fix" this. (It's also quite possible to have different rules for supposedly private messages and public distribution.)
- jonnathanson 15y ago
  The law gets interpreted very strictly and very literally around this subject. In fact, there has actually been a case where a 15-year-old girl was arrested for taking nude photos of herself and sharing them with others via chatrooms. She was charged with trafficking in child pornography, which is somewhat understandable. But she was also charged with exploitation of a minor, which seems a bit silly in this case (unless she had a split personality doing the photography?).
  - 15y ago

blhack 15y ago

>"Every right-thinking person abhors child pornography." Every right-thinking person abhors what they consider to be child pornography.

nomdeplume 15y ago

"Every right-thinking..." <--- The author is just covering his/her ass. Sort of like Descarte putting God in his meditation work.... he knows it is BS but he does not want to get hanged for his work.