5 ms·

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

by 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?).
  - AlexandrB 15y ago
    > She was charged with trafficking in child pornography, which is somewhat understandable. I'm not sure how. The intent (as I understand it) is to protect minors from predators and exploitation, not to give them a criminal record for their own actions - consider that the perpetrator and supposed victim are one and the same in this case. Had they charged others who viewed/shared the photos in the chatrooms, that would be understandable, even if they're minors themselves.
    - jonnathanson 15y ago
      Whether she realized it or not, she became the initial vector for distribution of child pornography the second she shared the photos online. So there is a semi-reasonable argument to be made that she caused some degree of social harm in distributing the photos. I'm not sure which side of the fence I fall on, but at least I could entertain the argument with a straight face. The exploitation charge, on the other hand, was patently ludicrous.
      - JulianMorrison 15y ago
        The social harm of distributing photos is that a minor was harmed. Jailing a minor is harm! What utter idiocy.
      - deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
      - bennysaurus 15y ago
        > So there is a semi-reasonable argument to be made that she caused some degree of social harm in distributing the photos. Entertaining that argument, the harm though would be to herself. Why should she be essentially doubly punished with membership to the sex offender's list and a criminal record?
MostAwesomeDude 15y ago
Why not go after child molestation directly? Child pornography used to be considered evidence of molestation, and it's been only recently a bad thing in its own right rather than a way of tracking down people who abuse and molest children.
- Vivtek 15y ago
  You can't prove molestation by stealing somebody's computer. Similarly, I'm looking for my keys over here, because the light is better.
barrkel 15y ago
There's a conflict between the age of criminal culpability and the age of consent. Why aren't these the same ages?
JeffffreyF 15y ago
But that's not the issue being debated. The issue is tracking the communications of people we disagree with. Let's be crystal clear about that. They're trying to bury the intent in another issue to confuse people and get what they want. The bill will help no child.
burgerbrain 15y ago
You know what harms/kills waaaaaaaay more children? Cars. Maybe we should ban pictures of those.
- wbienek 15y ago
  Wow. You hit the nail on the head. Now for the reality. Reality is that human death is ok as long as there is a value to society. Traveling quickly saves time and creates a huge value to people and the government. IE people make more money and pay more taxes than if there were no cars. This is why speed limits went up awhile back. It's a balancing act. Human life is worth a certain amount to the government but isn't priceless. So, not only will they not ban cars, but not lower speed limits too much. Imagine the lives saved if there were discriminators on cars that made it so they would not go over 55mph. Lives saved, yes, but productivity lost..
  - burgerbrain 15y ago
    Privacy and global communication networks create tremendous value for society. Unfortunetly people want to throw those out for the sake of incidences that negatively effect an astronomically small number of people.

by daeken 15y ago

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?).
- AlexandrB 15y ago
  > She was charged with trafficking in child pornography, which is somewhat understandable. I'm not sure how. The intent (as I understand it) is to protect minors from predators and exploitation, not to give them a criminal record for their own actions - consider that the perpetrator and supposed victim are one and the same in this case. Had they charged others who viewed/shared the photos in the chatrooms, that would be understandable, even if they're minors themselves.
  - jonnathanson 15y ago
    Whether she realized it or not, she became the initial vector for distribution of child pornography the second she shared the photos online. So there is a semi-reasonable argument to be made that she caused some degree of social harm in distributing the photos. I'm not sure which side of the fence I fall on, but at least I could entertain the argument with a straight face. The exploitation charge, on the other hand, was patently ludicrous.
    - JulianMorrison 15y ago
      The social harm of distributing photos is that a minor was harmed. Jailing a minor is harm! What utter idiocy.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
    - bennysaurus 15y ago
      > So there is a semi-reasonable argument to be made that she caused some degree of social harm in distributing the photos. Entertaining that argument, the harm though would be to herself. Why should she be essentially doubly punished with membership to the sex offender's list and a criminal record?

MostAwesomeDude 15y ago

Why not go after child molestation directly? Child pornography used to be considered evidence of molestation, and it's been only recently a bad thing in its own right rather than a way of tracking down people who abuse and molest children.

Vivtek 15y ago
You can't prove molestation by stealing somebody's computer. Similarly, I'm looking for my keys over here, because the light is better.

barrkel 15y ago

There's a conflict between the age of criminal culpability and the age of consent. Why aren't these the same ages?

JeffffreyF 15y ago

But that's not the issue being debated. The issue is tracking the communications of people we disagree with. Let's be crystal clear about that. They're trying to bury the intent in another issue to confuse people and get what they want. The bill will help no child.

burgerbrain 15y ago

You know what harms/kills waaaaaaaay more children? Cars. Maybe we should ban pictures of those.

wbienek 15y ago
Wow. You hit the nail on the head. Now for the reality. Reality is that human death is ok as long as there is a value to society. Traveling quickly saves time and creates a huge value to people and the government. IE people make more money and pay more taxes than if there were no cars. This is why speed limits went up awhile back. It's a balancing act. Human life is worth a certain amount to the government but isn't priceless. So, not only will they not ban cars, but not lower speed limits too much. Imagine the lives saved if there were discriminators on cars that made it so they would not go over 55mph. Lives saved, yes, but productivity lost..
- burgerbrain 15y ago
  Privacy and global communication networks create tremendous value for society. Unfortunetly people want to throw those out for the sake of incidences that negatively effect an astronomically small number of people.