The New York Times supports Child Pornography

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The New York Times supports Child Pornography

Jarmak: Jan 24, 2005

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

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 14, 2024 14:46

Jarmak: Jan 24, 2005

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: Jan 24, 2005

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.

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.

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: Jan 24, 2005

Commie NedFlanders posted:

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?

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: Jan 24, 2005

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

Jarmak: Jan 24, 2005

PT6A posted:

Yeah, great... now find a way to prove in a court of law that the image was legal to possess when it was received, possibly with an uncooperative sender.

This is trivial to do unless the original sending and receiving device are both unavailable.

In which case I'm kinda okay with people not being legally allowed to actively preserve naked pictures of their 15 year old high school girlfriend/boyfriend for ages after that person would rather they not have that anymore.

Your solution is possibly the most unenforceable scheme I can possibly think of.

# ¿ Apr 6, 2016 19:22

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 14, 2024 14:46

Jarmak: Jan 24, 2005

blowfish posted:

I can't think of a reason to drag it up though, because that would also criminalise people who merely forgot they still have girlfriend/boyfriend pics.

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

If it wasn't the sender's testimony would do just as well. Literally the only time you'd have trouble is if you were actively preserving nude photos who was willing to perjure themselves to say otherwise. Third option, they have to prove the subject's age to prove they are underage, do if they even so much know who the subject is it would be some simple math to get the age of the accused.

# ¿ Apr 6, 2016 19:58

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The New York Times supports Child Pornography