3 ms·

> Pictures of people being harmed (child abuse images are not porn) are not speech they are evidence of a crime. No, they are a crime in se. Child pornograph

> Pictures of people being harmed (child abuse images are not porn) are not speech they are evidence of a crime. No, they are a crime in se. Child pornography is special in that possession of child pornography is automatically a crime, even if the person didn't know the pictures were of children[0], or even if they person didn't know they had them. Let's say your 16-year-old friend, as a joke, puts a nude photo of himself/herself on your phone. If a policeman searches you and finds it, and you admit you were in possession of the phone before the search, you are automatically guilty of possession of child pornography, even if you can prove you didn't know the photo was there. I'll say it again: if you admit to possessing something that is later found to have contained child pornography while it was in your possession, you are automatically guilty of possession of child pornography. [0] e.g. a 17-year-old who looks much older

JupiterMoon 11y ago
> No, they are a crime in se. Agreed. However, they are also evidence that a child has been abused and this was my point. That images of abuse are not speech in the sense of exchange of ideas, opinions and facts and don't need to be protected by free speech laws.
- chimeracoder 11y ago
  > However, they are also evidence that a child has been abused and this was my point. "Child porn" is defined very broadly, and is a very politically loaded term. Many things that are defined legally as child porn would not be considered evidence of abuse by many (most?) people. If you're 16 and snap a photo of your junk in the locker room and send it to your teammates as a prank[0], you are all guilty of possession of child porn. Who abused whom here? There are also many things that are defined legally as child porn that are unambiguously abuse, in very horrific ways. But the problem is that they're both conflated when you use the term "child porn", which is both overloaded and politically charged. [0] Yes, this happens. Teenagers are weird.
  - JupiterMoon 11y ago
    I never used the words child porn. I used the words child abuse images. This may have been a hint that I was talking about images of actual child abuse rather than selfies taken by teenagers. We are in a discussion about an ideal world. Let's imagine that if we were really in a position that governments were legislating about absolute freedom of speech they could also draw up some non stupid laws to protect victims of child abuse?
    - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
      There isn't exactly a difference since there has been some efforts to call the former the latter to focus on the issue of the abuse. If you are wanting to get highly specific with your terms, you'll probably need to work with some definitions stated up front because otherwise people will be assuming layman usage. Also to note, under current law, those selfies are images of abuse. It may seem absurd that the law considers such an action as abusive, but that is just because the sometimes is absurd.
rayiner 11y ago
That is the opposite of correct. There is in fact a Supreme Court case on this (X-Citement Video). The Supreme Court interpreted the federal child pornography statute to extend the "knowing" mental state requirement to the "child pornography" element of the statute in order to save its Constitutionality.

JupiterMoon 11y ago

> No, they are a crime in se. Agreed. However, they are also evidence that a child has been abused and this was my point. That images of abuse are not speech in the sense of exchange of ideas, opinions and facts and don't need to be protected by free speech laws.

chimeracoder 11y ago
> However, they are also evidence that a child has been abused and this was my point. "Child porn" is defined very broadly, and is a very politically loaded term. Many things that are defined legally as child porn would not be considered evidence of abuse by many (most?) people. If you're 16 and snap a photo of your junk in the locker room and send it to your teammates as a prank[0], you are all guilty of possession of child porn. Who abused whom here? There are also many things that are defined legally as child porn that are unambiguously abuse, in very horrific ways. But the problem is that they're both conflated when you use the term "child porn", which is both overloaded and politically charged. [0] Yes, this happens. Teenagers are weird.
- JupiterMoon 11y ago
  I never used the words child porn. I used the words child abuse images. This may have been a hint that I was talking about images of actual child abuse rather than selfies taken by teenagers. We are in a discussion about an ideal world. Let's imagine that if we were really in a position that governments were legislating about absolute freedom of speech they could also draw up some non stupid laws to protect victims of child abuse?
  - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    There isn't exactly a difference since there has been some efforts to call the former the latter to focus on the issue of the abuse. If you are wanting to get highly specific with your terms, you'll probably need to work with some definitions stated up front because otherwise people will be assuming layman usage. Also to note, under current law, those selfies are images of abuse. It may seem absurd that the law considers such an action as abusive, but that is just because the sometimes is absurd.

rayiner 11y ago

That is the opposite of correct. There is in fact a Supreme Court case on this (X-Citement Video). The Supreme Court interpreted the federal child pornography statute to extend the "knowing" mental state requirement to the "child pornography" element of the statute in order to save its Constitutionality.