calm your horses dude and limit your rant please, where did I miss the point exactly?
You think that a 15 year old can’t film himself mating with his/her awesome iphone? Is that child porn? Then that 15 year old should be castrated and go to jail NOW AND GET OUT WHEN IS 99 years old. NO YOUNGER. Damn!
edit, it seems as Lexicat points out that this actually does happen
Fair enough - but it’s one of those things where clarity beats discretion.
As soon as that self-boning 15 year old lets that video out of his possession - and he may not do this himself if his phone gets hacked or lost or have “friends” swipe it for laughs and share the images - the whatever his intent in self recording was - then other people viewing this will call it porn . His friends/enemies might laugh at it with no sexual feelings about the content - but there is no stopping creeps from using his self-documentation as porn, particularly when it is a 15 year old, who looks like a 15 year old.
I know of no case where an underage kid who took explicit pics or footage of themself was charged with making or distributing child porn. However, their pals, peers or romantic partner/ex who shared those pics/footage, particularly if these people were above the age of consent have been charged.
More often the humiliated underage person who took and/or shared these images self-harms or suicides.
p.s. Easy with the gender assumptions, dude.
The same is true in the US, the age of consent varies by state but the federal definition of child pornography does not (http://www.justice.gov/criminal/ceos/citizensguide/citizensguide_porn.html).
Obviously underage teens should not get paid to be in porn. I also agree with you that 16 year olds should not be filming themselves having sex, or even sending naked photos of themselves to their girl/boyfriends. But they do. And they are sometimes charged with felonies because of it. Does a felony record improve their chances and reduce the impact of the images? No. But the law, as written, does not make the important distinctions you specify in your comment.
The fatal flaw with prosecutorial discretion is that some prosecutors are sociopathic fuckwits as you rightly point out.
Similar to the legal drinking age which varies greatly.
Never trust prosecutorial discretion that much, because the situation you described is very often not what actually happens.
https://www.isba.org/ibj/2010/04/sextingitsnojokeitsacrime
http://campbelllawobserver.com/2013/07/sexting-from-bad-judgment-to-a-registered-sex-offender/
Consider as well that the recipient is also guilty of possessing child pornography, even if the images of videos were unsolicited.
Take a look at Lexicat’s links. The first link discusses 4 cases in 4 separate US states.
Yeah I missed my chance to be first with 'But who will think of the children, well obviously this guy". Note child porn isn’t funny, but the guy in charge of the filters getting busted for it is funny.
I stand corrected. Thanks for pointing that out. I was aware that the people who had shared images of underage peers had been charged, but I was unaware that underage people who had sent PG17 or X images of themselves had been charged.
Personally I think sharing these sorts of self-pic images is…unwise. However, there is a world of difference between an underage girl taking pics to send to her boyfriend (then the girlfriend is charged with making and distributing child porn) v.s. an underage person taking X pics of themself to send to someone as harassment or a threat v.s. a person taking pics of an underage person in a sexual context v.s. a spiteful friend/ex sharing/distributing these images v.s. an underage person taking explicit pics of another underage person without their consent (ie unaware/passed out).
Obviously there are plenty of legal and ethical issues to sort out, which have not yet happened in a coherent or universal manner.
Nixon went ‘easily’? Odd; that’s not how I recall it.
As “easy” as it was to take out the leader of the most powerful nation in world history. It wasn’t a prolonged military struggle with millions of deaths that brought this powerful world leader down. It was a couple of nosey journalists, but mainly Nixon’s own corruption and hubris that did him in. In context of his vastly powerful position in the world, his downfall was easy. When Nixon saw the writing on the wall, he knew it was game over and prepared his farewell speech.
My point is that history is littered with powerful people that do stupid/crazy/corrupt things to bring on their own downfall. Powerful people can and do go out this easily once they’ve sufficiently screwed themselves. Hubris is a bitch.
really? that’s your reasoning? no one has ever been arrested for a crime of which they were innocent?
anyone have any further information on where/when the offending images were found?
anyone have any further information on where/when the offending images were found?
It’s an ongoing investigation so there’s not much information on where the images were found AFAIK. But, it stands to reason the imagery was found in a very compromising scenario for him when someone of his status and connections is arrested so hurriedly.
no one has ever been arrested for a crime of which they were innocent?
Sure, it happens to poor, black people all the time. Cameron’s advisor is neither.
If the only factor was that he’d been arrested and nothing else was known then I’d agree with you. I certainly don’t know if he’s guilty or not, but I can also read the writing on the wall and it looks very bad.
If he didn’t know his goose was cooked, it’s extremely likely he would have taken some very different actions by now (along with his peers, etc.). Is this enough information for me to say I know he’s guilty? No, but I will be shocked if he isn’t.
I believe GCHQ is only too aware of this issue in human nature.
Used to be 14 in Georgia until the mid-90’s when it was changed to 16.
The way these cases are being prosecuted is a complete violation of the spirit of child pornography laws. These laws were never intended to be applied to self-expression, no matter how ill conceived.
Legally, you are completely wrong, at least in most of the US.
The age of consent in the US is set by the individual states and is typically 16 or 17, but sometimes 18. However, US federal law, which applies in all states, bans as “child” porn any video of sex of people under 18. That means that in most states, there is an age where one can legally have sex, but not take a picture of video of yourself while doing it. The legal definition of “child porn” doesn’t have anything to do with the popular idea of it as something that involves adults abusing pre-pubescents. Its basically a restriction on the self-expression of young people.
Yeah well I can drive with my G1 license at 16 if I have a fully licensed a-dult in attendance aged at minimum 20yrs. For 12 months.
With my full G I don’t need chaperoning but I can’t have it til I’ve gotten a G2 & had that for 12 months.
So I can’t get that full G til I’m 18.
But I doubt that what you are describing is a graduated system, more likely just unrelated. [quote=“MikeBoda, post:77, topic:24621”]
The legal definition of “child porn” doesn’t have anything to do with the popular idea of it as something that involves adults abusing pre-pubescents. Its basically a restriction on the self-expression of young people
[/quote]
Still, I find it hard to believe that the laws surrounding that aren’t about that, but are rather a restriction of expression for young people, for 12-24 months, that prohibits sex w/selfies. Did you intend to exclude the former in expressing the latter?
It’s quite the Fire Marshall Bill approach… “Making porn can ruin your lives, kids! Let me prove it by prosecuting you.”
I’d pay for extreme BDSM featuring members of parliament in the victim roles. I wouldn’t watch it, but I’d finance its production.
