3 ms·
Aside that viewpoint, "Child Porn" in many statutes include fully clothed youngsters doing what is 'not the norm for that age group'. Pretty much any image of
by TheAmazingIdiot 17y ago
Aside that viewpoint, "Child Porn" in many statutes include fully clothed youngsters doing what is 'not the norm for that age group'.
Pretty much any image of people under 18 can be considered Child Porn if that jury thinks so.
- ErrantX 17y agoActually not at all: well, definitely not in the UK. Here we use the Copine scale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copine_scale http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copine_scale) It's important to note the ONLY classification that images of clothed children can fall into is #1 (the least "worst" case). However to actually qualify the poses would have to be very sexually sxplicit. Child underwear models, for example, wouldnt normally get categorised there (obviously if there is more extreme indecent material they WOULD be appended as "relevant" images). Your right the jury will be shown an image and if it has a child in it they will cry "OMG CP" but fortunately experts analyse all of the data first and ensure only real indecent images make it to the trial :) I cant say 100% for the US but I believe things work in the same way. EDIT; a colleague pointed me at this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_Test http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_Test). Apparently in the US you lot are completely unable to make use of a simpel classification scale (I jest, I jest) so things are less cut and dried. In which case I guess your point stands. I prefer our way.
- ahoyhere 17y agoYes, the American way is essentially "I'll know it when I see it, so gimme more to look at!" Sigh.