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

231–240 of 315 posts

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

#231

Post by microcolonel »

> He claims any potential harm in his case is just as attenuated and vague as Free Speech Coalition. Because no harm was done, he should have the same right as any adult to take voluntary photographs of his own body. We do not find this argument persuasive.

Given how persuasive this argument is, I am a bit surprised that the court was not persuaded. I understand that Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition has some distinguishing factors, like the fact that the depictions in question were clearly distinguishable from records of a crime (on account of them not being photographic images of actual minors).

This is a messy and complicated business, it seems like there needs to be a legislative solution since the supreme court can not find what most people consider a just outcome in an interpretation of the statute.

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

#232

Post by JamesBarney »

mythrwy wrote: post #114
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.

I'm not in favor of that at all. Neither I am favor of throwing the adult book meant for serious predators at kids messing around (which happens now in other areas and it really shouldn't). What I am in favor of is a different set of rules for minors self distributing. Possibly deferred adjudication and counseling first offense, ramping up from there. It is behavior that could cause trouble for the kid and possibly f…

Why should a girl who sends a picture of her breasts to a highschool boyfriend have to deal with the law at all?

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

#233

Post by JamesBarney »

bsder wrote: post #47
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 st…

But you have a very easy way to differentiate group 2 from 1. Age...

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

#234

Post by pakitan »

Iv wrote: post #122
sillysaurus3 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is hard to do in practice. I've heard someone vehemently defend a relationship they had at 14 with an older fellow. They categorized it as a positive experience that helped them discover themselves. It may have even been 13; I forget. Was it a crime? It might. be tempting to say no, but laws do exist as a deterrent.

The idea that informed consent is a characteristic that magically appears in full at 18 or 20 is ridiculous. Obviously some people acquire it earlier. Some much later. Problem is, judges and police have yet to design an objective maturity test, so instead they use an age threshold, easy to test, objective but arbitrary. Like the map is not the territory, the law is not a perfect match to our moral landscape. It works…

> If we open the pandora box of consent under 18, we will have to tread very carefully.

In my country age of consent is 14. There is no pandora's box, there is no widespread abuse of teen girls and children being raped. Only ones who routinely have sex and get pregnant at that age are gypsy girls and that's because their "traditions" require them to marry young.

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

#235

Post by Digit-Al »

closeparen wrote: post #173
Iv wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea that informed consent is a characteristic that magically appears in full at 18 or 20 is ridiculous. Obviously some people acquire it earlier. Some much later. Problem is, judges and police have yet to design an objective maturity test, so instead they use an age threshold, easy to test, objective but arbitrary. Like the map is not the territory, the law is not a perfect match to our moral landscape. It works…

It's fine to assume that people under 18 lack the necessary power and sophistication to meaningfully decide whether or not to have sex. But then we must also assume that they lack the necessary power and sophistication to meaningfully decide to commit rape. Deciding that someone is both a rape victim and a rapist at the same time, for the same act, isn't an unfortunate sacrifice around the edge cases of heuristic rea…

I couldn't agree more. I've long said that it's insane that the law can say that someone is not mature enough to consent to sex, but is mature enough to commit statutory rape. The idea that two teenagers of say 14 and 15 who consensually go with their natural urges can then be both put on a sex offenders register that will affect them negatively for the rest of their lives is absolutely insane and proof of a fundamentally broken system.

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

#236

Post by bryanrasmussen »

Iv wrote: post #122
sillysaurus3 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is hard to do in practice. I've heard someone vehemently defend a relationship they had at 14 with an older fellow. They categorized it as a positive experience that helped them discover themselves. It may have even been 13; I forget. Was it a crime? It might. be tempting to say no, but laws do exist as a deterrent.

The idea that informed consent is a characteristic that magically appears in full at 18 or 20 is ridiculous. Obviously some people acquire it earlier. Some much later. Problem is, judges and police have yet to design an objective maturity test, so instead they use an age threshold, easy to test, objective but arbitrary. Like the map is not the territory, the law is not a perfect match to our moral landscape. It works…

The American system is probably the world's most enthusiastic supporter of trying juveniles and children as adults.

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

#237

Post by JamesBarney »

lr4444lr wrote: post #102
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?

The rationale is the age of majority. As a parent, I have a right to control the influences in my daughter's life - save for some exceptions around mandatory education and maintaining basic health. That means whom she associates with, and how images of her taken are used save for those taken of her while in public and not under duress of compulsion. Why is that so hard to understand?

But if she sends an indecent photo of herself to a (similarly aged)boyfriend should she be put on a sex offenders list for the rest of her life for distribution of child pornography?

That seems excessive. And it's hard for me to empathize with any parent who thinks that's ok.

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

#238

Post by dingo_bat »

Since almost all of us agree that sexual preference is something that is innate, we cannot consciously affect it significantly, isn't it wrong to prosecute pedophiles? IMO, these people should be treated with pity, not as criminals. If we do that, all these absurdities will disappear automatically.

Of course, coercion is still illegal, and coercion of a minor would carry higher criminal penalties. But distribution of content does not automatically imply coercion or violence.

But sentencing somebody to prison for looking at cp is akin to sending gay people to prison.

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

#239

Post by dingo_bat »

aiyodev wrote: post #148
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.

Also, there's the possibility of poor children with Android phones getting convicted while rich children with locked iPhones go free because they're more costly to investigate.

Modern androids are pretty much impossible to unlock without the correct pattern/fingerprint. You can wipe them clean, but forget recovering any data.

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

#240

Post by Sir_Substance »

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.

>“Trust us, we'd never use it against the people it's supposed to protect” isn't enough.

The correct answer to this is always "Since legislation is freeform and you're writing it now anyway, maybe you should write that it should never be used that way into the legislation".

Post reply on HN