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

31–40 of 315 posts

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

#31

Post by astura »

cperciva wrote: post #22
quuquuquu wrote: post #2

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?…

Never mind adults pretending to be children. In some jurisdictions, child pornography includes cartoons . In one case, Simpsons fanfic.

But TFA says otherwise

>In Free Speech Coalition, the Supreme Court struck down a law that banned sexually explicit depictions of minors, as well as depictions that appeared to be minors. These included computer generated images and depictions of legal adults pretending to be minors. The Court recognized that the First Amendment “does not embrace certain categories of speech, including … pornography produced with real children.” However, the Court found the prohibition of images that appear to be, but are not actually, minors improper; any harm stemming from those false images “does not necessarily follow from the speech, but depends upon some unquantified potential for subsequent criminal acts."

Unless I'm reading it wrong.

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

#32

Post by tristor »

ikeboy wrote: post #27
gozur88 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is he on the sex offender list, though? I'd rather go to jail for a few years than end up on that list.

A few years is pretty rough, and you'd probably be a felon then anyway. Is that really better than being on a sex offender list?

Yes. In the US being on the sex offender registry has deep negative impacts on getting housing, credit, work, and of course social life. This completely independent of /why/ you're on the registry. A felony does cause some problems getting work, but doesn't really affect anything else.

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

#33

Post by eighthnate »

quuquuquu wrote: post #2

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?…

> Everything is a crime in our neo-puritan state.

What is strange is how today's puritanism is coming from the left rather than the right.

Growing up as kid, I remember christians and conservatives attacking "Married with Children", "Simpsons", "Beavis and Butthead", "Southpark", etc. Even as an elementary kid, I remember associating christians/conservatives with censorship and for most of my life identified myself as a liberal.

The past few years, I've given up on liberals too as they are now pushing their form of censorship under the aegis of "social justice".

> Congrats, two 17 year olds sending pictures of themselves consentually = child porn.

It's even worse that isn't it? If a 17 year old takes a picture of herself on a smartphone and sends it to herself on her other accounts, then she's guilty of distributing child porn. Technically, isn't she guilty of distributing child porn of herself to herself?

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

#34

Post by ikeboy »

astura wrote: post #31
cperciva wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Never mind adults pretending to be children. In some jurisdictions, child pornography includes cartoons . In one case, Simpsons fanfic.

But TFA says otherwise >In Free Speech Coalition, the Supreme Court struck down a law that banned sexually explicit depictions of minors, as well as depictions that appeared to be minors. These included computer generated images and depictions of legal adults pretending to be minors. The Court recognized that the First Amendment “does not embrace certain categories of speech, including … pornography produced with rea…

There are stories from other countries but not in the US since that referenced Supreme Court case afaik.

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

#35

Post by AlexCoventry »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #10
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 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, becaus…

Got a cite?

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

#36

Post by vacri »

userbinator wrote: post #23
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?

I think most would agree there is a profound difference between a 23 year old dating a 17 year old ...or even a 17.997-year-old. The problem is that the world is mostly continuous, not discrete, but laws try to be the latter.

Curiously, the US Army will take you at 17 (with parental consent). So you're old enough to decide to die for your country, but not old enough to decide to have sex with someone who's 23.

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

#37

Post by ikeboy »

odammit wrote: post #28
c3534l wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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.

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

#38

Post by zaroth »

ikeboy wrote: post #6
quuquuquu wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Much better read, thanks.

Mods might want to update the link?

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

#39

Post by daveFNbuck »

vacri wrote: post #36
userbinator wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think most would agree there is a profound difference between a 23 year old dating a 17 year old ...or even a 17.997-year-old. The problem is that the world is mostly continuous, not discrete, but laws try to be the latter.

Curiously, the US Army will take you at 17 (with parental consent). So you're old enough to decide to die for your country, but not old enough to decide to have sex with someone who's 23.

With parental consent, you can marry at much younger than 17 in most states.
Post reply on HN