|
xposting from GBS, it was something to laugh at there, but I am genuinely curious about D&D's perspective. This sub forum seems far more sex-positive and willing to discuss issues regarding the morality culture war I can't say I'm surprised that these libertine hedonists pushing their ideology of feeling good all the time would take a weekend ski trip down the slippery slope of sexual immorality. We all knew this was coming, but it seems no one cares as long as everyone can get their jollies http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/04/o...ght-region&_r=0 quote:TEENAGERS who sext are in a precarious legal position. Though in most states teenagers who are close in age can legally have consensual sex, if they create and share sexually explicit images of themselves, they are technically producing, distributing or possessing child pornography. The laws that cover this situation, passed decades ago, were meant to apply to adults who exploited children and require those convicted under them to register as sex offenders. quote:Given the extensive research that shows that young people who are nonwhite, low income, gay or transgender are disproportionately prosecuted for many crimes, there is good reason to suspect that laws that criminalize teenage sexting are being unfairly applied as well. As legislators have tried to cope with the legal fallout, they have also opened up more types of images to scrutiny: While child pornography laws apply only to sexually explicit images, many new sexting laws criminalize all nude images of teenagers, including photos of topless teenage girls. quote:Both existing child pornography laws and new sexting-specific laws criminalize a common behavior among teenagers. Studies have shown that roughly one-third of 16- and 17-year-olds share suggestive images on their cellphones. Among young adults, rates are above 50 percent. In the past, partners wrote love letters, sent suggestive Polaroids and had phone sex. Today, for better or worse, this kind of interpersonal sexual communication also occurs in a digital format. And it’s not just young people: An article in an AARP magazine describes sexting as “fun, easy and usually harmless.” Now children are sllowed to produce and distribute their own child pornograpgy, then they will be publishing this filth on Instagram or YouTube or facebook or wherever, before you know it I won't be able to do a simple google search without being spammed with child porn made by degenerate exhibitionistic children lasciviously displaying their (lack of) shame to the world. Thank you liberals for all that you do so on a serious note here are the basic questions to be addressed as I see them: 1: does a child taking a nude photograph of themselves constitute the production of child pornography? 2: does a child sharing such a photograph constitute distributing child pornography? 3: how should the laws regarding criminally obscene materials such as child porn be properly enforced in these cases? 4: should there be any changes to the law regarding this issue and what are the implications of such changes? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 22:13 |
|
|
Your title makes it sounds like the NYT wants to get it on with 10-year-olds, not defending teens who can legally consent to sex with each other sending each other nude photos. Is there a reason it's so deliberately provocative?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
I think charging children with possession of child pornography of themselves is the most retarded example of spirit vs. word of law I can imagine. It serves no purpose and is punitive for punitive sake.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:Is there a reason it's so deliberately provocative? Commie NedFlanders posted:xposting from GBS
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
LorneReams posted:I think charging children with possession of child pornography of themselves is the most retarded example of spirit vs. word of law I can imagine. It serves no purpose and is punitive for punitive sake. Okay what if they decided to put those up on Instagram or YouTube or their own privately hosted website? Kids are all about the likes these days what if they decide they can get a lot lf attention by sharing it freely with people?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
Commie NedFlanders posted:Okay what if they decided to put those up on Instagram or YouTube or their own privately hosted website? Kids are all about the likes these days what if they decide they can get a lot lf attention by sharing it freely with people? You take it down
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
How is this even a debate? No, a minor should absolutely not be charged with distribution of child pornography if they send out a naked picture of themselves. I can see how there are some pretty uncomfortable and contentious debates that some could could have on how exactly to frame these laws but how could anyone conceivably support giving a teenager a record as a sex offender because they took and distributed a picture of themselves? Edit -- I guess the place where there might be a gray area is if a minor shares a picture of themselves and another minor. Certainly, though, in cases where its a person taking a picture only of themselves I don't see how it could really be up for argument. Helsing fucked around with this message at 19:47 on Apr 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
Yeah, if it's posted online, the law should be able to get it taken down, but prosecuting teens for this poo poo is dumb as hell. Then again, I know a now 17 year old who has been on the sex offender registry since he was 12, since the law states that anyone under 13 automatically cannot consent, then obviously he raped his also 12 year old girlfriend when he knocked her up. The laws on teenage sexuality are in one sense outdated, and in another necessary. Protecting minors from predators is necessary, but at the same time punishing teenagers for being sexual gets you nowhere.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
Commie NedFlanders posted:Okay what if they decided to put those up on Instagram or YouTube or their own privately hosted website? Kids are all about the likes these days what if they decide they can get a lot lf attention by sharing it freely with people? Anyone accessing the site should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The kid should get court appointed counseling, or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
Helsing posted:How is this even a debate? No, a minor should absolutely not be charged with distribution of child pornography if they send out a naked picture of themselves. I can see how there are some pretty uncomfortable and contentious debates that some could could have on how exactly to frame these laws but how could anyone conceivably support giving a teenager a record as a sex offender because they took and distributed a picture of themselves? There is also the issue of the person who receives the image possessing child pornography, so you'd have to change that law, presumably by demonstrating that the image was intentionally sent from its creator/subject. AA is for Quitters posted:Yeah, if it's posted online, the law should be able to get it taken down, but prosecuting teens for this poo poo is dumb as hell. That situation is just asinine. There's no way that a minor should be both criminally responsible for a sex crime and legally unable to consent to sex under any circumstances. Those two things can't go together, logically speaking.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
PT6A posted:That situation is just asinine. There's no way that a minor should be both criminally responsible for a sex crime and legally unable to consent to sex under any circumstances. Those two things can't go together, logically speaking. If they were really both the same age then it would also seem to assume that the boys have an inherently predatory sexuality whereas girls of the same age are pure and innocent and need to be protected. And this is assuming there was no racial angle here, as there sometimes is with these cases.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 19:54
|
|
|
Helsing posted:If they were really both the same age then it would also seem to assume that the boys have an inherently predatory sexuality whereas girls of the same age are pure and innocent and need to be protected. And this is assuming there was no racial angle here, as there sometimes is with these cases. Also a very good point. It's so implicit in our society that I didn't even notice that part until you pointed it out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
Can't be charged with distributing underage pornography of yourself, can't be charged with receiving child pornography if you are a minor or within 2 years of age of the subject of the images. Problem fixed
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Can't be charged with distributing underage pornography of yourself, can't be charged with receiving child pornography if you are a minor or within 2 years of age of the subject of the images. Problem not fixed. Age of consent is lower than 18 in a lot of places, so you could still have a situation where a minor above the age of consent sends a nude photo to their lover, who is then in violation of the law. You could also have a situation where someone receives a nude photo from their boyfriend or girlfriend who's under the age of consent, and sends it to another person who's the same age. The third person, if they knowingly keep that photo, should be guilty of a crime regardless of their age (in theory). Child pornography isn't illegal because it's creepy as gently caress, and it shouldn't be illegal because it's creepy as gently caress; it's illegal strictly because it involves the sexual exploitation of minors, which is a very bad thing. Unless exploitation actually occurs, there should be no crime committed, and when exploitation does occur, there should be no way of reading the law such that it's legal. EDIT: I think a big part of the problem is that the laws never considered the possibility of child pornography being created and distributed without exploitation occurring, and for no monetary gain. PT6A fucked around with this message at 20:06 on Apr 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
Most states already have "Romeo and Juliet" laws and it would be pretty hard to argue that minors can gently caress each other but can't send each other naked pics. They should just make the Romeo and Juliet laws cover this as well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
Helsing posted:And this is assuming there was no racial angle here, as there sometimes is with these cases. Bingo! Guess what race the guy is. Now guess what race the girlfriend was. So now this poor guy has a "sex with a child <13" charge following him around for life. These kids getting sex crimes as teenagers forever limits their employment and housing opportunities.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:Most states already have "Romeo and Juliet" laws and it would be pretty hard to argue that minors can gently caress each other but can't send each other naked pics. They should just make the Romeo and Juliet laws cover this as well. Again, this doesn't cover the situation where the age of consent for sex is under 18. You would have to change the minimum age for child pornography to match the age of consent, or you still get weird situations where it's legal for two people to gently caress, but not legal for them to have nude photos of each other.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
Actually the only newspaper that supports Child Porn is the closet pedophiles of the Sun. PT6A posted:Problem not fixed. Age of consent is lower than 18 in a lot of places, so you could still have a situation where a minor above the age of consent sends a nude photo to their lover, who is then in violation of the law. The age of consent in most states in the USA is actually 16-17. Europe's lowest is 14 in the likes of Germany, Portugal, Italy, Austria .etc.etc but most of Europe varies around 15-16 where Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, Czech Republic, France .etc .etc. are 15 and Scotland, England, Wales, Finland, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium etc etc are 16. There are only five countries in Europe where it's 17-18 which includes Ireland & Cuprus (17) the rest being Malta, Turkey, Vatican City (18). PT6A posted:Again, this doesn't cover the situation where the age of consent for sex is under 18. You would have to change the minimum age for child pornography to match the age of consent, or you still get weird situations where it's legal for two people to gently caress, but not legal for them to have nude photos of each other. Here's the other problem to that, thanks to the Internet that anyone can upload footage/pictures and even if you were to put Age of Consent & Minimum age for porngraphic material the same, you will still have countries which have a lower age of consent then the regular 16 age law so it would still be the same situation there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
Doctor Butts posted:Anyone accessing the site should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I agree everyone who accesses YouTube and Instagram should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I know I have never clicked on a blind link to those sites, and always know what exactly what the full content is ahead of time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
Commie NedFlanders posted:Okay what if they decided to put those up on Instagram or YouTube or their own privately hosted website? Kids are all about the likes these days what if they decide they can get a lot lf attention by sharing it freely with people? I mean morally that's only really reprehensible if they're posting other people's naked pictures and for the same reason it would be if they were both adults. You could just delete it without putting the person in jail though, unless again they're posting nude photos of other people which is pretty wrong.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Again, this doesn't cover the situation where the age of consent for sex is under 18. You would have to change the minimum age for child pornography to match the age of consent, or you still get weird situations where it's legal for two people to gently caress, but not legal for them to have nude photos of each other.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
Extreme0 posted:Actually the only newspaper that supports Child Porn is the closet pedophiles of the Sun.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Not sure how this follows? Applying Romeo & Juliet laws, taken to mean "a small age difference overrules age of consent laws for statutory rape charges", would essentially mean that something that would be child pornography in the possession of someone who was significantly older than the party depicted, would not be so when their ages are more similar. Romeo and Juliet laws are designed to carve exceptions in age of consent laws, so that it's not a crime for someone to have sex with someone close to them in age, even if they wouldn't be able to consent to sex normally. Extending these laws to cover naked pictures would indeed solve that problem. There's another related problem that this doesn't address: what do you do with nude photos/sexts of someone who is over the age of consent, but not over the age of 18? That's not covered by Romeo and Juliet laws, because the age difference is wholly irrelevant in the eyes of the law when it comes to the legality of that person having sex with someone else. The only way this problem doesn't exist is in jurisdictions where the age of consent is 18 or higher, which isn't too many places.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Problem not fixed. Age of consent is lower than 18 in a lot of places, so you could still have a situation where a minor above the age of consent sends a nude photo to their lover, who is then in violation of the law.  Replace "18" with whatever the age of consent is, that wasn't really the point. Yes this means that other adults in possession of pornography of teenagers between the ages of consent and 18 would no longer be chargeable. It seems rather inconsistent to me that the law says it's legal for a 60 year old to gently caress a 16 year old but not to possess a nude picture of one, trying to figure out some sort of legal distinction to preserve this quirk is both not worthy of the effort and likely to provide unintended results in edge cases (and you could still criminalize production in order to stave off exploitation). The alternative here to the the above paradox is to decide that the problem is that it shouldn't be legal for a 60 year old to gently caress a 16 year old and just raise the age of consent to 18. Raise the Romeo and Juliet threshold a little bit if you're super worried about the ability of college freshman to legally hook up with highschoolers when they come back for homecoming. Sharing naked photos of someone else without their consent has 100% nothing to do with child pornography laws.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:You take it down Of course, but what stops them from doing it again an again in their search for attention? Also, what does it mean if it's not criminal for them to publish that garbage, but it because they are doing so, it comes up on my rss fees or newsfeed or wherever. Will people be held criminally liable for seeing these obscene images, lumped into the same group as Jared from subway, while the producers and distributors have no consequences?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 00:14
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I mean morally that's only really reprehensible if they're posting other people's naked pictures and for the same reason it would be if they were both adults. How is it morally acceptable for children to publish sexually naked and/or explicit images of themselves?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
Commie NedFlanders posted:How is it morally acceptable for children to publish sexually naked and/or explicit images of themselves? Because you can't exactly molest yourself. I mean you could, I suppose, argue that it's morally objectionable to supply paedophiles with that content I guess? But that seems a bit flimsy. Not enough to merit much in the way of punishment. You should remove the content and explain to the kid why they shouldn't do it, certainly. Because we assume kids aren't quite informed enough to make that judgement for thesmselves and you should protect them from the consequences of what they may later consider to be a mistake, but I'm finding it hard to really build a moral argument against it. What's the kid done? Abused themselves? Do you get them to show you on the doll where they touched themselves? Testify against themselves in court? The argument against exploitation doesn't translate properly when you do it to yourself. Unless you believe that sexually explicit material is inherently wrong, the reason age of consent laws exist is to prevent children from being exploited, which, well, you can't exploit yourself. You can make mistakes you later regret, but mistakes aren't immoral. Just best avoided if possible. Commie NedFlanders posted:Of course, but what stops them from doing it again an again in their search for attention? If you're genuinely worried about being maliciously forced to view child pornography by devious exhibitionist teenagers I have to tell you that sounds like a pre-emptive really flimsy defence. Perhaps the solution would be requiring a need to establish intent to view in the prosecution of that particular crime? Like, if it pops up in your RSS feed, whatever. If you keep accidentally downloading all this child porn then that's kind of suspicious. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 00:35 on Apr 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
Commie NedFlanders posted:Of course, but what stops them from doing it again an again in their search for attention? Their parents? Like seriously what is this retarded poo poo? "We must put young girls in jail to prevent them from forcing their home made child porn on me!"
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 01:08
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Like seriously what is this retarded poo poo? "We must put young girls in jail to prevent them from forcing their home made child porn on me!" You're talking to the guy who drug down that (admittedly horrible to begin with) gender pronouns thread and notably said that he felt that a woman who didn't look pretty or dress feminine enough wasn't entitled to be called a woman. IE: He'd call them a man to their face. Dude is sexist and creepy as gently caress. This is just an extension of that. You're surprised that someone like that would to try to throw blame onto the girl or boy for viewing child pornography? Edit: Commie NedFlanders posted:Of course, but what stops them from doing it again an again in their search for attention? Are you talking hypotheticals here or something? Because what sort of RSS or "news" feed would you be subscribed too that hands you a stream of child pornography? The only ones that would do that are the creepy redditor sort of feeds. And they're nothing like news. 
Archonex fucked around with this message at 01:24 on Apr 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 01:11
|
|
|
D&D is ridiculously easy to troll.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
Punishing children for taking pictures is backwards and doesn't help anyone. Potentially at risk children shouldn't ever be placed more at risk, and they shouldn't be discouraged from seeking help if they ever need it. If your worry here is about poor, innocent people "accidentally downloading" child porn, your concerns are twisted in all the wrong ways. No one stumbles across child porn. If you do, there are ways to report it. There's something sincerely shady about you if you're honestly worried about being "caught" with it in your "cache." edit: Also the weird repetitive insistence on blaming the children is really disturbing. There's just the underlying tone of "those dastardly children, forcing me to look at their bodies!"
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 01:44
|
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:D&D is ridiculously easy to troll. My theory is CNF is a Kylielison re-reg. I'll need their opinions on Madoka to really know, though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 02:37
|
|
|
Not really seeing what the issue of debate here, unless you're seriously suggesting that teens should face legal repercussions for sexting to each other, which doesn't seem fair or just. I'm not totally against the idea that you can exploit yourself, and that there should be legal measures to prevent that, to protect you from yourself, but using punishments on the victim is kind of extreme. I'm also not sure young adults are necessarily exploiting themselves, so much as exploring one of many social interactions. Which they should have both the freedom to do, safeguarded from anyone on the outside, and countermeasures against possible abuse that might occur, inside that space.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 02:52
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Romeo and Juliet laws are designed to carve exceptions in age of consent laws, so that it's not a crime for someone to have sex with someone close to them in age, even if they wouldn't be able to consent to sex normally. Extending these laws to cover naked pictures would indeed solve that problem.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 06:29
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:The equivalent when applied to pornography laws is saying that a 19 year old in possession of pornographic images of a 17 year old is not illegal, even though the latter is under 18, because the age difference overrides the regular law regarding the age of people appearing in porn. (Assuming the age difference limit is 2 years.) Yes, I agree. I'm saying that still leaves the situation where a 25-year-old (or 30-year-old, or 60-year-old) can legally have sex with a 17-year-old, but has committed a very serious crime by possessing a nude photo of that 17-year-old. Yeah, that situation is creepy as gently caress and it's very likely an unhealthy relationship, but if the sex isn't illegal (which it isn't in most of the world) the photo sharing probably shouldn't be either. I think the way to deal with it is to draw a distinction between self-produced nude photos/videos and the same thing being produced or distributed for any kind of commercial benefit, or being knowingly distributed by someone other than the producer. The law already recognizes the difference between child pornography and nude depictions (even photos) of minors with "artistic merit" so it's not entirely without precedent. EDIT: With just a closeness-in-age provision, you'd also have bizarre and difficult to deal with legal situations where a legal image could become illegal if you keep it on your phone for long enough. That doesn't happen with age-of-consent Romeo and Juliet provisions, because both people age at the same rate, but pictures don't get older. What was legal one day could be illegal child pornography the next. PT6A fucked around with this message at 16:52 on Apr 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 16:49
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Yes, I agree. I'm saying that still leaves the situation where a 25-year-old (or 30-year-old, or 60-year-old) can legally have sex with a 17-year-old, but has committed a very serious crime by possessing a nude photo of that 17-year-old. Yeah, that situation is creepy as gently caress and it's very likely an unhealthy relationship, but if the sex isn't illegal (which it isn't in most of the world) the photo sharing probably shouldn't be either. PT6A posted:I think the way to deal with it is to draw a distinction between self-produced nude photos/videos and the same thing being produced or distributed for any kind of commercial benefit, or being knowingly distributed by someone other than the producer. The law already recognizes the difference between child pornography and nude depictions (even photos) of minors with "artistic merit" so it's not entirely without precedent.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
I don't want the first AI developed to be designed for the purpose of appreciating child pornography.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:For some reason I completely blanked out this possibility. Didn't chat roulette try that, and forget to test their nudity detector on black people?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
Couldn't we just say that you can possess a nude photo of a minor, provided that minor is: over the age of consent and/or you were legally allowed to have sex with them at the time the photo was taken, and it was provided directly to you by the person who created it (maybe a digital signature scheme could be used for this purpose, so that the sender has to sign the photo with a private key, and then encrypt the photo with the recipients public key).
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 18:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 22:13 |
|
|
PT6A posted:Couldn't we just say that you can possess a nude photo of a minor, provided that minor is: over the age of consent and/or you were legally allowed to have sex with them at the time the photo was taken, and it was provided directly to you by the person who created it (maybe a digital signature scheme could be used for this purpose, so that the sender has to sign the photo with a private key, and then encrypt the photo with the recipients public key). Or instead of doing something retarded, convoluted, impossible to implement, and ripe with loopholes to exploit we could... add language too the bill indicating that images could not be considered as violating the law if they were legal to possess at the time of receipt?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 18:22
|
|