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

291–300 of 315 posts

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

#291

Post by jessaustin »

giancarlostoro wrote: post #262
BigJono wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And god help you if you find yourself in the media crosshairs at any point. Which is even more likely if you go to trial since "paedophile gets community service/fine" is an absolute slam dunk of a headline and nobody other than the courts are going to give a shit whether you violently raped a kid in a dark alley or had someone download 3 videos on your badly secured wi-fi.

> or had someone download 3 videos on your badly secured wi-fi. Depends: https://www.justice.gov/usao-co/pr/colorado-springs-man-car-...

Seems like if he had been using Joe Blow's unsecured wifi rather than the army's, there could have been another defendant in that case?

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

#292

Post by jaclaz »

pgnas wrote: post #147

as a parent and also someone who was a child at one time I can see that kids make all kinds of mistakes. I mean, I seriously don't even ask why sometimes because I know the answer I'm going to get will not make any sense. I'm very lucky and I have some wonderful children I cannot see them going out and doing something like this however people do stupid things. I don't think charging someone with something that is goi…

And as a side note, someone has to consider how in some parts of the US you can legally drive a car at 14 or 15 (of course with some limitations, but not that many), at 16 or 17 you can get an airplane or helicopter pilot license, yet you become of age at 18 and you cannot drink beer or get an unrestricted commercial driver's license before turning 21.

Somehow these age limits sound contrasting each other.

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

#293

Post by StavrosK »

stevenwoo wrote: post #71
StavrosK wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He was 23 and dating a 17 year old, got convicted, sent to prison, and is now labeled a sex offender for life. What third-world country would send someone to prison for dating a 17 year old? I doubt even Iran or some other theocracy would do that. Where was this?

Dating as practiced in the Western world is illegal in Iran as far as internet searching shows me. One has to be married to have sex legally. https://news.vice.com/article/irans-government-is-worried-th... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/dec/29/iran-gender

That's very interesting. It looks like my doubts were too charitable.

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

#294

Post by StavrosK »

nsgi wrote: post #285
StavrosK wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He was 23 and dating a 17 year old, got convicted, sent to prison, and is now labeled a sex offender for life. What third-world country would send someone to prison for dating a 17 year old? I doubt even Iran or some other theocracy would do that. Where was this?

If they are the same sex then... quite a few

True, my country has laws like that too, and I am ashamed for them. Luckily, as far as I know, they aren't enforced.

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

#295

Post by [deleted] »

13of40 wrote: post #43
sgustard wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 .

[deleted]

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

#296

Post by ringaroundthetx »

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?

> What is the rationale behind defining child porn age You are conflating two concepts that aren't relevant.

1) Dating and age of sexual consent have nothing to do with the legal rationale behind child pornography prohibitions.

2) Depictions of nudity of subjects under 18 do not run afoul of child pornography prohibitions (of course, contingent on if you can afford your rights all the way past appeals court)

The age in 2) is typically standardized by the federal government, and they just let people consent to contracts to exploit themselves at the age they can consent to any other contract.

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

#297

Post by ringaroundthetx »

zaroth wrote: post #42

The idea that it is constitutional to charge someone with a felony for taking a picture of their own body is absurd. The judges were just too chicken to strike the entire statute. Actually, my apologies, that's unfair to the chicken.

In this case, it was the transmission that was the qualifier.

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

#298

Post by ringaroundthetx »

odammit wrote: post #26

Well Snapchat is surely screwed. There goes their second most popular snap after putting cat ears on a fidget spinner.

there are a lot of things high schoolers can get in trouble for if people reported it

fortunately most people don't report it

minefield out there

also, stop sending dick pics to women

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

#299

Post by cperciva »

quuquuquu wrote: post #246
cperciva wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fortunately I don't have to juggle anything here: Tarsnap's encryption makes it impossible for me to detect , never mind prevent people from storing "illegal bits".

Do you fear a world where multiple political entities (Obama, FBI, Singapore, Pentagon) have publicly requested laws that magically require you to somehow decrypt your users' data, else you go to prison for contempt? It reminds me of the situation right now with the guy in Philadelphia who is in prison for contempt for not offering decryption password to the judge.

Not particularly. Judges are good at seeing through calls for magic; the situation in Philadelphia is a bit different because the judge doesn't believe that the password had in fact been forgotten.

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

#300

Post by DanBC »

etplayer wrote: post #280
DanBC wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be more persuasive if you linked to the laws. Some of what you're saying about England doesn't sound right.

As for drawings, the CAJA 2009 section 62 onwards deals with it.[0] As for publishing text online, there was a case of a man who wrote stories and was convicted I believe under the Obscene Publications Act, though the BBC article just says "six counts of indecent publications"[1] I'm sure I've replied to you about this before, actually, not long ago. (Edit: found it https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14904716 ) I'm…

I mean, you were wrong then, and you're wrong now, and if you read the law you'd see that.

Your bbc example is telling: he's an admitted paedophile, who was offending against children. The OPA isn't new law, it's very old law.

> He admitted at Preston Crown Court to storing hundreds of child abuse images and posting on a paedophile website.

Post reply on HN