11–20 of 315 posts
What 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?
Most of the rest of the world actually.
Everything 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.
But, from the OP:
>> The case itself involved a 17-year-old sending “an unsolicited picture of his erect penis” to an apparently unwilling recipient, but the logic of the court’s reasoning applies even when the recipient is pleased to receive the photo. The court does say that, “because [Gray] was not a minor sending sexually explicit images to another consenting minor, we decline to analyze such a situation,” but I think that — given the logic of the majority opinion — the analysis would have to end up the same way; nothing in the majority’s reasoning turns on the presence of an unwilling recipient.
Everything 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.
What 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?
Should note the sentence here was 30 days + community service.
It's a complete miscarriage of justice: throwing a minor in jail, using a law supposedly created to protect minors. It could only be more cynical if they tried them as an adult–I didn't check, for fear of what I may discover.
Should note the sentence here was 30 days + community service.
Should note the sentence here was 30 days + community service.
The ruling is correct, but the law is stupid.
Should note the sentence here was 30 days + community service.
Everything 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?…
"However, the Court found the prohibition of images that appear to be, but are not actually, minors improper"
They found the prohibition to be improper. It's oddly phrased.