Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Court OKs child porn prosecution of minors distributing pictures of themselves

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 315 posts

Re: Court OKs child porn prosecution of minors distributing pictures of themselves

#41

Post by kakarot »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #12
ikeboy wrote: post #3

Earlier 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.

> 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. 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…

Came into this thread kinda pissed, but after reading more about the case... it's wrong to send unsolicited nudes of yourself to someone no matter how old you are. The kid should definitely receive some kind of reprimanding. Jail? I don't think institutionalizing someone's mind over something like this is healthy... maybe just counseling?

And that being said, one must imagine how differently the case might have been handled had the genders of the involved persons been switched.

Re: Court OKs child porn prosecution of minors distributing pictures of themselves

#43

Post by 13of40 »

sgustard wrote: post #24
jfaucett wrote: post #7

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?

Here's a map of age of consent per country, ranging from 12 to "must be married." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent "Most jurisdictions have set a fixed age of consent" but also "Some jurisdictions have laws explicitly allowing sexual acts with minors under the age of consent if their partner is close in age to them."

Holy... In half of Mexico the age of consent is 12.

Re: Court OKs child porn prosecution of minors distributing pictures of themselves

#44

Post by thanksgiving »

I'll be the bad guy here and say that these laws should all just go away. It is just too convenient to plant "evidence" be it alcohol, drugs, or this.

The idea that minors cannot consent is correct. Children are not a scaled small version of adults. They need to develop not just grow physically and children are vulnerable. We need to protect vulnerable members of our society. However, like with so many things in life, we've gone too far though. We need to scale back this stupidity be it "for the children" or "terrorism" or "drugs are bad".

There's a quote about doing the same thing and expecting different results which I can't remember off the top of my head but to me all of this: including the drama against marriage and abortion feels like bread and circus to get people occupied with silliness.

Re: Court OKs child porn prosecution of minors distributing pictures of themselves

#45

Post by rothbardrand »

c3534l wrote: post #21
sethammons wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jury Nullification is always an option.

There was no jury. This was a Supreme Court ruling.

Which is inexcusable. The Supreme Court is clearly corrupted and failing at its one job.... which is to shut stuff like this down and be a check on the irresponsibility of the legislative and executive branches.

Re: Court OKs child porn prosecution of minors distributing pictures of themselves

#46

Post by ikeboy »

kakarot wrote: post #41
thaumasiotes wrote: post #12

Earlier 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. 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…

Came into this thread kinda pissed, but after reading more about the case... it's wrong to send unsolicited nudes of yourself to someone no matter how old you are. The kid should definitely receive some kind of reprimanding. Jail? I don't think institutionalizing someone's mind over something like this is healthy... maybe just counseling? And that being said, one must imagine how differently the case might have been…

What they did was wrong, but it shouldn't be prosecuted under child porn laws. They should get whatever punishment they'd get if they did the same at 18, under whatever harassment laws apply.

Re: Court OKs child porn prosecution of minors distributing pictures of themselves

#47

Post by bsder »

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #4

Because 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.

So, child porn is legal as long as both parties are involved? That doesn't work either. All you will wind up doing is having people magically always have only two people involved. And "teen sexting" isn't even uniform: a 10-year-old sexting a 16-year-old is generally a problem while a 17-year-old sexting an 18-year-old likely isn't.

Your opponents in kiddie porn are two different sets of people: 1) the egregiously stupid, generally teenagers, who may or may not be malicious about it and 2) the horrifically competent and malicious who WILL find a way to exploit any loophole.

Group 2 is what makes child pornography laws so problematic. Anything you do to strengthen your ability to get Group 2 generally increases the collateral damage in Group 1.

This is exactly what "prosecutorial discretion" is supposed to be used for. Unfortunately, it seems that "prosecutorial discretion" is now mostly "scoring poltical points for election."

Re: Court OKs child porn prosecution of minors distributing pictures of themselves

#48

Post by s4vi0r »

Avshalom wrote: post #14
jfaucett wrote: post #7

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?

Some states have a (I think it's called) Romeo and Juliet law that does in fact protect say 19yo dating 16yo or some range depending on the state.

In Canada its within 2 years for 12 (or 13?) year olds (I.e. a 10/11 year old can consent with a 12/13 year old) and within 5 years for 14/15 year olds. Though I'm not sure if that covers self distribution of cp (e.g. if a 14 year old sends some nudes to another 14 year old)

Re: Court OKs child porn prosecution of minors distributing pictures of themselves

#49

Post by rothbardrand »

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #4

Because 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.

No victim means no crime. (Morally, I'm using the word "crime" here to refer to a moral crime.) But it also means that the prosecution of such non-crimes is itself a crime, meaning the "guilty" party here is the victim and everyone involved in their prosecution, up to and including the supreme court, is criminal.

Re: Court OKs child porn prosecution of minors distributing pictures of themselves

#50

Post by odammit »

ikeboy wrote: post #37
odammit wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Guilty or not could you imagine the rest of his life. At an interview "so I googled you... what's this about the Supreme Court having a ruling over your dick pic, brah" Better start his own business or get to flipping them burgz.

You can change your name to avoid it coming up in Google, but would still show up on a background check, I think.

Until you get to that "previously used names" line on the walmart application. Woof. That's gonna be a tough life.
Post reply on HN