4 ms·

The CP topic is not about teenagers, but about children less than 10 years (you might easily find a 18+ photo model that looks like 14 if that's your thing). La

• Samuel_Michon 13y ago
  > The CP topic is not about teenagers, but about children less than 10 years I don’t know where you get that idea. The law makes no such distinction. Nude depictions of individuals who appear to be younger than 18 years of age are usually illegal. In many countries, this includes drawings and animations. In other countries, the subject doesn’t even have to be nude, striking a suggestive pose can make the image illegal.
  • netrus 13y ago
    Have a look at Wikipedia: "Most possessors of child pornography who are arrested are found to possess images of prepubescent children; possessors of pornographic images of post-pubescent minors are less likely to be prosecuted, even though those images also fall within the statutes.[19]"
    • Samuel_Michon 13y ago
      Thanks for confirming what I wrote earlier. If I drive 3 miles faster than the speed limit, I usually won’t have the highway patrol chasing me, but that doesn’t mean I’m not breaking the law. Just because you don’t consider it child porn if it’s graphic depictions of persons over 10 years of age, that doesn’t mean it’s permitted by law.
    • betterunix 13y ago
      Those prosecutions are rare because they are hard to win. If there were a reliable way to prove that a picture or video involves someone younger than 18, those prosecutions would be far more common. It is not as though the prosecutor receives a case of someone has pictures that appear to be of minors, and they say, "Gee, I think we can let this slide. Those girls are clearly sexually developed!" At the end of the day, a prosecutor's career depends on their ability to win cases. Prosecutors choose cases they believe they can win, regardless of whether or not those cases actually make sense.
  • ErrantX 13y ago
    In practice the law is interpreted though. Not just for CP! When an analyst looks through some images they have to make a subjective judgement because it is very hard to judge age in many cases. To be clear; striking a suggestive pose is very very rarely illegal in itself. It may be classified on a relevant scale as part of the investigation (e.g. COPINE) but that is only because it is of obvious relevance to the charge/conviction. If someone was caught with "suggestive" images on their computer in the UK, for example, the CPS wouldn't prosecute (because it's not actually illegal).
    • pessimizer 13y ago
      In practice (at least in the US), people have been prosecuted for images that were clearly of adults dressed as children, and images that were drawings of children. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_cartoon_pornography_depicting_minors#Cases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_cartoon_pornog... And though it was struck down in 2002: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Pornography_Prevention_Act_of_1996 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Pornography_Prevention_A... In the UK, Operation Ore resulted in the arrests of 3,744 people, of which very few had any tangible evidence of having, ever purchasing, or accessing child pornography. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ore