Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The New York Times supports Child Pornography
 
  • Locked thread
Blue Footed Booby
Oct 4, 2006

got those happy feet

 D&D is ridiculously easy to troll.

* # ¿ Apr 6, 2016 01:23
  • Quote
Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 14, 2024 05:06
  • Quote
Blue Footed Booby
Oct 4, 2006

got those happy feet

A Buttery Pastry posted:

For some reason I completely blanked out this possibility.

Yeah, the lack of aging in photos + the possibility of them being shared complicates things. What we need are proper smartphones, smart enough to identify whether a picture features nude content, as well as the age of any of the nude people in the picture. The image would then be tagged with this information, and become only visible on devices whose owner match a given age range. Obviously circumventing this age range by possessing a phone in another person's name would result in the full weight of the law being brought to bear against you.

Didn't chat roulette try that, and forget to test their nudity detector on black people?

* # ¿ Apr 6, 2016 17:55
  • Quote
Blue Footed Booby
Oct 4, 2006

got those happy feet

Jarmak posted:

Naw it would be trivial to prove if they were just forgotten because it would be on the same device.
...

God help anyone who gets a new phone and just moves the SD card over. :v:

* # ¿ Apr 6, 2016 20:12
  • Quote
Blue Footed Booby
Oct 4, 2006

got those happy feet

Stinky_Pete posted:

If the prosecution is claiming the defendant did something that's only illegal at a certain time or location, isn't it on the prosecution to prove they did indeed do it at that time? Like, if there were a curfew, how is it that I have to prove that it was before curfew when I went outside?

Are you unclear on what "affirmative defense" means it are you arguing the way it should work in a world where certain crimes aren't arbitrarily deemed so bad that setting up innocent people for bullshit convictions is worth risking?

(In case it's unclear, I agree it's kinda questionable but some people don't know the significance of those key terms)

Blue Footed Booby fucked around with this message at 19:10 on Apr 14, 2016

* # ¿ Apr 14, 2016 12:21
  • Quote
  • Locked thread
The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The New York Times supports Child Pornography