6 ms·
> it may become a target of the US government. The FBI might target them, but most likely for their laissez-faire moderation where deleting a subsection litera
by zhazam 15y ago
> it may become a target of the US government.
The FBI might target them, but most likely for their laissez-faire moderation where deleting a subsection literally dedicated to child pornography caused a major uproar.
- e2e8 15y agoI take issue with your description of /r/jailbait. None of the images in that subreddit qualified as child pornography under the definition of child pornography on the Wikipedia page.
- zhazam 15y agoThen perhaps you shouldn't get legal counsel from Wikipedia ;)
- e2e8 15y agoEven in light of US vs Knox, which I had not know about, the material on r/jailbait was not child pornography. The courts opinion list some criteria for something to be considered child pornography. The material on r/jailbait does not fit these criteria. 1) whether the focal point of the visual depiction is on the child's genitalia or pubic area; 2) whether the setting of the visual depiction is sexually suggestive, i.e., in a place or pose generally associated with sexual activity; 3) whether the child is depicted in an unnatural pose, or in inappropriate attire, considering the age of the child; 4) whether the child is fully or partially clothed, or nude; 5) whether the visual depiction suggests sexual coyness or a willingness to engage in sexual activity; 6) whether the visual depiction is intended or designed to elicit a sexual response in the viewer. Opinion: http://www.mit.edu/activities/safe/cases/knox/94a0734p.htm http://www.mit.edu/activities/safe/cases/knox/94a0734p.htm
- gzavitz 15y agoI think calling r/jailbait pornography could be debatable. Technically speaking there wasn't anything illegal with the sub-reddit, which is why it upset a lot of people - even those who wouldn't go close to r/jailbait (such as myself).
- zhazam 15y agoPossession of it was grounds for conviction in US vs Knox.