5 ms·

These laws also outlaw the sorts of pictures my parents have in their house -- photos of my sister and I splashing around naked in the kitchen sink when we were

by pcl 14y ago

These laws also outlaw the sorts of pictures my parents have in their house -- photos of my sister and I splashing around naked in the kitchen sink when we were infants.

mistercow 14y ago
IANAL but I don't think those pictures would qualify as CP under the law (in the US), unless they are "suggestive" in nature.
- betterunix 14y ago
  Maybe, but the fact that the standard is so completely subjective is extremely troubling. Equally troubling is that the law covers cartoons and even written text.
  - mistercow 14y ago
    >Equally troubling is that the law covers cartoons There actually isn't very good legal precedent for this yet. In each case where someone was convicted of possession of CP involving cartoons and drawings, there has also been possession of photographs, with one exception. In that exception, the defendant plead guilty. However, even in that case the judge ruled that the "visual depiction of any kind" part of the law was unconstitutional. >even written text I am pretty sure that's false. Do you have a citation?
    - betterunix 14y ago
      The PROTECT Act of 2003 criminalizes written text that is meant to cause someone to believe that any material is child pornography; this is the "pandering" provision. The Supreme Court overturned an appeals court decision that found that clause to be unconstitutional, paving the way for prosecutions over something as simple as telling someone that a link will lead to them child pornography (which, in fact, was what the case was about). To put it plainly, if you email me random numbers and claim that they are an encrypted child pornography image, you are a felon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_Act_of_2003 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_Act_of_2003 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Williams https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Williams It is also not the case that only one person has been prosecuted over cartoons but no real child pornography; there have been at least two notable cases so far (and likely others that have not made the news): http://www.sankakucomplex.com/2008/10/24/american-faces-20-years-over-loli-manga/ http://www.sankakucomplex.com/2008/10/24/american-faces-20-y... http://comipress.com/special/miscellaneous/down-the-slippery-slope-the-crime-of-viewing-manga http://comipress.com/special/miscellaneous/down-the-slippery... Really though, even if we ignore the fact that here in the United States we are talking about illegal cartoons, my point was that the law is not meant to protect minors. It should be clear from the fact that no minors are involved in the creation of such cartoons that that is the case. The point of these kinds of laws is to increase the power of the police to conduct searches or to arrest people, and to give prosecutors more power in plea bargaining and at trial. The theory behind this kind of law is that the police are too limited by things like civil rights, and that prosecutors are too limited by our justice system; therefore, more laws must be passed to compensate for such restrictions on executive branch power. The way our politicians view this issue, if prosecutors are unable to convict lots of people for possession of child pornography because of constitutional restrictions on evidence gathering or the fact that defendants are allowed to actually defend themselves in court, then the prosecutors must be allowed to tack more charges on. After all, if a prosecutor is unable to build a strong case for one charge, they might still be able to convict a person by building a weak cases for multiple charges. If a defendant believes they can successfully defend on charge, they might not believe that they can successfully defend many charges and will thus forfeit their civil rights and just take a plea bargain. This is a troubling attack on our most important rights. The fact that we cannot be arbitrarily thrown into prison is one of the things that makes America a great country. Every expansion of police and prosecutor power etches away at that fact and attacks our rights.
      - mistercow 14y ago
        There is some information I did not know about there. However, regarding this: > It is also not the case that only one person has been prosecuted over cartoons but no real child pornography; there have been at least two notable cases so far (and likely others that have not made the news): The Hadley case is the one that I was referring to where he plead guilty. In the Whorley case, he was in fact found to have "14 digital photographs depicting minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct" (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-4th-circuit/1431669.html http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-4th-circuit/1431669.html) As for there being other cases that haven't made the news, I doubt it. This is something that free speech advocates are paying close attention to, after all. In any case, I agree with the rest of your point.
- speeder 14y ago
  http://www.aclu.org/womens-rights/aclu-supports-ohio-mother-prosecuted-nude-photos-her-daughter http://www.aclu.org/womens-rights/aclu-supports-ohio-mother-... http://abcnews.go.com/US/family-pictures-flagged-walgreens-deportation/story?id=10241066#.UVxtHT_A4ig http://abcnews.go.com/US/family-pictures-flagged-walgreens-d...
  - mistercow 14y ago
    The latter link apparently involved pictures of the man kissing his son's genitals. As for the former link, can you find any citation on the actual outcome of that case? Because I can't.

by pcl 14y ago

These laws also outlaw the sorts of pictures my parents have in their house -- photos of my sister and I splashing around naked in the kitchen sink when we were infants.

mistercow 14y ago

IANAL but I don't think those pictures would qualify as CP under the law (in the US), unless they are "suggestive" in nature.

betterunix 14y ago
Maybe, but the fact that the standard is so completely subjective is extremely troubling. Equally troubling is that the law covers cartoons and even written text.
- mistercow 14y ago
  >Equally troubling is that the law covers cartoons There actually isn't very good legal precedent for this yet. In each case where someone was convicted of possession of CP involving cartoons and drawings, there has also been possession of photographs, with one exception. In that exception, the defendant plead guilty. However, even in that case the judge ruled that the "visual depiction of any kind" part of the law was unconstitutional. >even written text I am pretty sure that's false. Do you have a citation?
  - betterunix 14y ago
    The PROTECT Act of 2003 criminalizes written text that is meant to cause someone to believe that any material is child pornography; this is the "pandering" provision. The Supreme Court overturned an appeals court decision that found that clause to be unconstitutional, paving the way for prosecutions over something as simple as telling someone that a link will lead to them child pornography (which, in fact, was what the case was about). To put it plainly, if you email me random numbers and claim that they are an encrypted child pornography image, you are a felon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_Act_of_2003 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_Act_of_2003 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Williams https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Williams It is also not the case that only one person has been prosecuted over cartoons but no real child pornography; there have been at least two notable cases so far (and likely others that have not made the news): http://www.sankakucomplex.com/2008/10/24/american-faces-20-years-over-loli-manga/ http://www.sankakucomplex.com/2008/10/24/american-faces-20-y... http://comipress.com/special/miscellaneous/down-the-slippery-slope-the-crime-of-viewing-manga http://comipress.com/special/miscellaneous/down-the-slippery... Really though, even if we ignore the fact that here in the United States we are talking about illegal cartoons, my point was that the law is not meant to protect minors. It should be clear from the fact that no minors are involved in the creation of such cartoons that that is the case. The point of these kinds of laws is to increase the power of the police to conduct searches or to arrest people, and to give prosecutors more power in plea bargaining and at trial. The theory behind this kind of law is that the police are too limited by things like civil rights, and that prosecutors are too limited by our justice system; therefore, more laws must be passed to compensate for such restrictions on executive branch power. The way our politicians view this issue, if prosecutors are unable to convict lots of people for possession of child pornography because of constitutional restrictions on evidence gathering or the fact that defendants are allowed to actually defend themselves in court, then the prosecutors must be allowed to tack more charges on. After all, if a prosecutor is unable to build a strong case for one charge, they might still be able to convict a person by building a weak cases for multiple charges. If a defendant believes they can successfully defend on charge, they might not believe that they can successfully defend many charges and will thus forfeit their civil rights and just take a plea bargain. This is a troubling attack on our most important rights. The fact that we cannot be arbitrarily thrown into prison is one of the things that makes America a great country. Every expansion of police and prosecutor power etches away at that fact and attacks our rights.
    - mistercow 14y ago
      There is some information I did not know about there. However, regarding this: > It is also not the case that only one person has been prosecuted over cartoons but no real child pornography; there have been at least two notable cases so far (and likely others that have not made the news): The Hadley case is the one that I was referring to where he plead guilty. In the Whorley case, he was in fact found to have "14 digital photographs depicting minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct" (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-4th-circuit/1431669.html http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-4th-circuit/1431669.html) As for there being other cases that haven't made the news, I doubt it. This is something that free speech advocates are paying close attention to, after all. In any case, I agree with the rest of your point.
speeder 14y ago
http://www.aclu.org/womens-rights/aclu-supports-ohio-mother-prosecuted-nude-photos-her-daughter http://www.aclu.org/womens-rights/aclu-supports-ohio-mother-... http://abcnews.go.com/US/family-pictures-flagged-walgreens-deportation/story?id=10241066#.UVxtHT_A4ig http://abcnews.go.com/US/family-pictures-flagged-walgreens-d...
- mistercow 14y ago
  The latter link apparently involved pictures of the man kissing his son's genitals. As for the former link, can you find any citation on the actual outcome of that case? Because I can't.