Court OKs child porn prosecution of minors distributing pictures of themselves
1–10 of 315 posts
Re: Court OKs child porn prosecution of minors distributing pictures of themselves
#2Everything is a crime in our neo-puritan state.
Congrats, two 17 year olds sending pictures of themselves consentually = child porn.
What I also couldn't understand from the article:
A picture of someone who is an adult, but is /pretending/ to be a minor is also child pornography?
What?!
Pornhub.com will need to take a hard look at some of its content providers then.
Or does it not apply to Montreal based companies?
What if the servers are in the US? What if the client is in the US?
Lunacy.
Re: Court OKs child porn prosecution of minors distributing pictures of themselves
#3Everything is a crime in our neo-puritan state. Congrats, two 17 year olds sending pictures of themselves consentually = child porn. What I also couldn't understand from the article: A picture of someone who is an adult, but is /pretending/ to be a minor is also child pornography? What?! Pornhub.com will need to take a hard look at some of its content providers then. Or does it not apply to Montreal based companies?…
This is about a 17 year old sending a picture to an adult non-consensually - the court declined to rule on whether "two 17 year olds sending pictures of themselves consensually" would be the same.
"Pretending to be a minor" would have 1st amendment protections as per previous cases.
Re: Court OKs child porn prosecution of minors distributing pictures of themselves
#4Because of the potential for selective or punitive prosecution I'm in favour of legalising teen sexting. Obviously the law needs to be carefully drafted to avoid allowing child exploitation, but it should absolutely not be possible to prosecute normal sexually-active teens under child pornography statutes. “Trust us, we'd never use it against the people it's supposed to protect” isn't enough.
Re: Court OKs child porn prosecution of minors distributing pictures of themselves
#5Everything is a crime in our neo-puritan state. Congrats, two 17 year olds sending pictures of themselves consentually = child porn. What I also couldn't understand from the article: A picture of someone who is an adult, but is /pretending/ to be a minor is also child pornography? What?! Pornhub.com will need to take a hard look at some of its content providers then. Or does it not apply to Montreal based companies?…
This is about a 17 year old sending a picture to an adult non-consensually - the court declined to rule on whether "two 17 year olds sending pictures of themselves consensually" would be the same. "Pretending to be a minor" would have 1st amendment protections as per previous cases.
Sheesh, I need to get my eyes checked!!
Thank you for clarifying.
Is it me or was this densely worded?
Re: Court OKs child porn prosecution of minors distributing pictures of themselves
#6Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is about a 17 year old sending a picture to an adult non-consensually - the court declined to rule on whether "two 17 year olds sending pictures of themselves consensually" would be the same. "Pretending to be a minor" would have 1st amendment protections as per previous cases.
Sheesh, I need to get my eyes checked!! Thank you for clarifying. Is it me or was this densely worded?
Half the article is just a quote from the court.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/09/teen-sends-dick-... is more readable, probably.
Re: Court OKs child porn prosecution of minors distributing pictures of themselves
#7What is the rationale behind defining child porn age The first case is something that actually happened to a friend of mine. He was 23 and dating a 17 year old, got convicted, sent to prison, and is now labeled a sex offender for life.
Are there any countries out there that take a sane approach to this moral conundrum?
Re: Court OKs child porn prosecution of minors distributing pictures of themselves
#8Should note the sentence here was 30 days + community service.
Re: Court OKs child porn prosecution of minors distributing pictures of themselves
#9The ruling is correct, but the law is stupid.
Re: Court OKs child porn prosecution of minors distributing pictures of themselves
#10What is the rationale behind defining child porn age The first case is something that actually happened to a friend of mine. He was 23 and dating a 17 year old, got convicted, sent to prison, and is now labeled a sex offender for life. Are there any countries out there that take a sane approach to this moral conundrum?
> What is the rationale behind defining child porn age This is actually known (as to the USA). When the law was passed, pornography producers didn't have to keep records of their models. The goal of setting the legal threshold at 18 was to make it really, really easy to convince a jury that a model who was e.g. 12 was below the legal threshold. It wasn't expected that photos of 16-year-olds would be prevented, because if all you're going on is a photo, they aren't easy to distinguish from 18-year-olds.