3 ms·

Something Awful has a reputation for Internet war campaigns. (They ARE the source of 4chan IIRC.) Anything coming from SA is expected to be so bad that it's not

Something Awful has a reputation for Internet war campaigns. (They ARE the source of 4chan IIRC.) Anything coming from SA is expected to be so bad that it's not an uncommon occurrence for sites to change (stupid) policy simply on the hype generated by a SA scheme. What I don't understand is how a "Jailbait" thread/subreddit could really be considered "legal" since the term "Jailbait" refers to people who look like they're at the age of consent but aren't. And thus will land anyone who has...intercourse; with them in jail. So the illegality is implied in the title.

citricsquid 15y ago
Jailbait refers to people it would be illegal to have sex with, this doesn't make pictures of them (clothed) illegal and it's only child porn when the subject is not clothed and even then they have to be engaging in sexual acts or the focus being their genitals for it to be (in the eyes of the law) child porn. edit: see comments below, I was wrong. No idea how reddit has not been shut down then...
- potatolicious 15y ago
  Patently false. It doesn't have to be nude to be child porn: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dost_test http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dost_test
- owenmarshall 15y ago
  It's important to note that nudity is not necessary for an image to be considered child pornography. The EFF has a really good primer on this that I saw linked on more than one occasion today: https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/adult https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/adult "Nudity is not enough for a finding that an image is lascivious, but clothing does not mean a photo is in the clear: 'a photograph of a naked girl might not be lascivious (depending on the balance of the remaining Dost factors), but a photograph of a girl in a highly sexual pose dressed in hose, garters, and a bra would certainly be found to be lascivious.'"
  - ErrantX 15y ago
    In theory, sure. In practice you are not likely to find a prosecutor interested in a case without some form of nudity. (background; I work in digital forensics). Ive seen the sub-reddits in question. Most were fairly "meh", by which I mean nothing that would ever get you in court. But beneath the surface there was active trading of real CP and this, I think, was what caught SA's attention.
    - owenmarshall 15y ago
      >Ive seen the sub-reddits in question. Most were fairly "meh", by which I mean nothing that would ever get you in court. But beneath the surface there was active trading of real CP and this, I think, was what caught SA's attention. Please don't normalize child pornography by saying "you've got the bad stuff and then there's this..." TBH, that's part of the problem. Perhaps it might not be prosecuted, but it's illegal nevertheless.
      - ErrantX 15y ago
        Not really. There is a very very big grey area in which images are "up for interpretation". You're thinking in black/white terms; unfortunately it is not so simple.
        owenmarshall 15y ago
        Fortunately, it is. Images are either child pornography or not. Lots of images are up for interpretation by the Dost test & other case law surrounding the issue, but at the end of the day, we're talking about a binary here. If someone is willing to risk hosting or viewing images that are up for interpretation, it's their own ass on the line -- but many people consistently underestimate exactly what child pornography is. But my main issue here is that your speech normalizes child pornography. By trying to frame the issue as "gut-wrenching abuse images of young children" versus "grey area stuff", possession of the "grey area stuff" seems less bad. But that's wrong. Both categories of images represent the victimization of children, and both can land you in prison.
- unimpressive 15y ago
  Ignoring the legality of it for a minute. The title "Jailbait" implies sexualization (My spell checker insists this is not a word, but it's meaning should be obvious to infer.) of the images within. Even if the images were all "legal" by the standards of United States law, (I'm assuming Reddit is hosted in the US.) they're still being used to fuel sexual fantasies related to the images. As I understand it the reason that child pornography is illegal is because it's distribution and consumption encourages the sexual abuse of children worldwide. If the end result of the Reddit "Jailbait" subthread is sexual fantasies of children, then the damage done is the same. For example, if the FBI seizes your computer and finds a file labelled "Porn" on your hard drive full of images like children tricycling around a neighborhood, your almost certainly going to be asked about it in the police interview(s) even if it's not necessarily prosecutable. Everything thats illegal isn't necessarily immoral; and everything thats legal isn't exactly moral either. The sexualization of children is immoral, legal or not.
  - icebraining 15y ago
    distribution and consumption encourages the sexual abuse of children worldwide That's the assumption, but not every expert agrees: http://human-stupidity.com/stupid-dogma/child-porn-witch-hunt/legal-child-pornography-reduces-child-sex-crimes-milton-diamond-hawaii http://human-stupidity.com/stupid-dogma/child-porn-witch-hun...
  - Drbble 15y ago
    Jailbait refers to adolescents, not children, which is relevant if you are doing a moral not legal analysis.
    - unimpressive 15y ago
      True. However, the years between childhood and adolescent are blurry. This is the reason you have the term "Jailbait" in the first place. Some people are "late bloomers" and look like children well into their teens. Others end up looking like they've reached the age of consent, but haven't; the "Jailbait". I think that in general sexualizing the under 18 crowd should be avoided. (Even if the age of consent is lower than that.) Just because of how blurry these lines are.
flomo 15y ago
> Something Awful has a reputation for Internet war campaigns. Note this hasn't been true for many years. They do have an extremely parochial attitude towards other general interest forums, and their dislike of Reddit is in the same vein as making fun of Fark/Ebaumworld/etc. The jailbait thing is just the one point they have broader PR traction on.

citricsquid 15y ago

Jailbait refers to people it would be illegal to have sex with, this doesn't make pictures of them (clothed) illegal and it's only child porn when the subject is not clothed and even then they have to be engaging in sexual acts or the focus being their genitals for it to be (in the eyes of the law) child porn. edit: see comments below, I was wrong. No idea how reddit has not been shut down then...

potatolicious 15y ago
Patently false. It doesn't have to be nude to be child porn: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dost_test http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dost_test
owenmarshall 15y ago
It's important to note that nudity is not necessary for an image to be considered child pornography. The EFF has a really good primer on this that I saw linked on more than one occasion today: https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/adult https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/adult "Nudity is not enough for a finding that an image is lascivious, but clothing does not mean a photo is in the clear: 'a photograph of a naked girl might not be lascivious (depending on the balance of the remaining Dost factors), but a photograph of a girl in a highly sexual pose dressed in hose, garters, and a bra would certainly be found to be lascivious.'"
- ErrantX 15y ago
  In theory, sure. In practice you are not likely to find a prosecutor interested in a case without some form of nudity. (background; I work in digital forensics). Ive seen the sub-reddits in question. Most were fairly "meh", by which I mean nothing that would ever get you in court. But beneath the surface there was active trading of real CP and this, I think, was what caught SA's attention.
  - owenmarshall 15y ago
    >Ive seen the sub-reddits in question. Most were fairly "meh", by which I mean nothing that would ever get you in court. But beneath the surface there was active trading of real CP and this, I think, was what caught SA's attention. Please don't normalize child pornography by saying "you've got the bad stuff and then there's this..." TBH, that's part of the problem. Perhaps it might not be prosecuted, but it's illegal nevertheless.
    - ErrantX 15y ago
      Not really. There is a very very big grey area in which images are "up for interpretation". You're thinking in black/white terms; unfortunately it is not so simple.
      - owenmarshall 15y ago
        Fortunately, it is. Images are either child pornography or not. Lots of images are up for interpretation by the Dost test & other case law surrounding the issue, but at the end of the day, we're talking about a binary here. If someone is willing to risk hosting or viewing images that are up for interpretation, it's their own ass on the line -- but many people consistently underestimate exactly what child pornography is. But my main issue here is that your speech normalizes child pornography. By trying to frame the issue as "gut-wrenching abuse images of young children" versus "grey area stuff", possession of the "grey area stuff" seems less bad. But that's wrong. Both categories of images represent the victimization of children, and both can land you in prison.
unimpressive 15y ago
Ignoring the legality of it for a minute. The title "Jailbait" implies sexualization (My spell checker insists this is not a word, but it's meaning should be obvious to infer.) of the images within. Even if the images were all "legal" by the standards of United States law, (I'm assuming Reddit is hosted in the US.) they're still being used to fuel sexual fantasies related to the images. As I understand it the reason that child pornography is illegal is because it's distribution and consumption encourages the sexual abuse of children worldwide. If the end result of the Reddit "Jailbait" subthread is sexual fantasies of children, then the damage done is the same. For example, if the FBI seizes your computer and finds a file labelled "Porn" on your hard drive full of images like children tricycling around a neighborhood, your almost certainly going to be asked about it in the police interview(s) even if it's not necessarily prosecutable. Everything thats illegal isn't necessarily immoral; and everything thats legal isn't exactly moral either. The sexualization of children is immoral, legal or not.
- icebraining 15y ago
  distribution and consumption encourages the sexual abuse of children worldwide That's the assumption, but not every expert agrees: http://human-stupidity.com/stupid-dogma/child-porn-witch-hunt/legal-child-pornography-reduces-child-sex-crimes-milton-diamond-hawaii http://human-stupidity.com/stupid-dogma/child-porn-witch-hun...
- Drbble 15y ago
  Jailbait refers to adolescents, not children, which is relevant if you are doing a moral not legal analysis.
  - unimpressive 15y ago
    True. However, the years between childhood and adolescent are blurry. This is the reason you have the term "Jailbait" in the first place. Some people are "late bloomers" and look like children well into their teens. Others end up looking like they've reached the age of consent, but haven't; the "Jailbait". I think that in general sexualizing the under 18 crowd should be avoided. (Even if the age of consent is lower than that.) Just because of how blurry these lines are.

flomo 15y ago

> Something Awful has a reputation for Internet war campaigns. Note this hasn't been true for many years. They do have an extremely parochial attitude towards other general interest forums, and their dislike of Reddit is in the same vein as making fun of Fark/Ebaumworld/etc. The jailbait thing is just the one point they have broader PR traction on.