|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 19:59 |
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Jarmak posted: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? 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. If we don't do something convoluted like a digital signing scheme, we have to either accept that pedos will get away with sharing/viewing exploitative child pornography on the edge cases, or that the laws will probably end up being used against "undesirables" like that 12-year-old that got put on the sex offender registry for having sex with another 12-year-old. You can't make or modify laws without considering how they will actually be enforced.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 19:59 |
|
|
Stinky_Pete posted:The more a teenager knows about encryption, the less likely he'll need to use it to protect their sexual communiques with their peers. I mean come on, we can barely get them to understand STDs or use condoms. Maybe the bill should just specify that all onus of proving it was received when it was against the law is on the prosecutor, which now that I think of it, is how courts are supposed to work anyway. You could easily add this sort of feature to SnapChat or something similar, I'm not saying each person has to figure it out on their own. Plenty of stuff is already automatically encrypted or signed without user intervention. Frankly, I can see it being an attractive feature for an app for adults too, since I'm sure most people would like to minimize the chances of other random people seeing their nude photos. Your point about the burden of proof is good, though; I'm just concerned that, where child pornography is involved, being within a certain age range would be an affirmative defence -- that is to say, you still did the thing prohibited by the law, but you were legally justified in doing so. Thus, the defendant would have to prove those facts, instead of the other way around, as is necessary for self-defence (for an example). It probably would be good if it were harder to prosecute these sorts of cases if there's any kind of grey area, but I don't see that happening with the constant "think of the children" mentality.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2016 18:32
|
|