Thread: The War on Child Porn: A witch hunt?

Originally Posted by coqauvin

Also, I would appreciate it if you would highlight an aspect of this case to direct the conversation on. I'm not sure exactly what it is you want the thread to discuss, and I'm also sure I'm not the only one who thinks this. If you could summarize an issue in this, or several, that bear talking about, please do so.

Wow, it isn't obvious, or did you not read my post/are you just acting snarky because of comments elsewhere?

Teenagers can be accused of making child pornography for sending pictures of themselves for their boyfriends/girlfriends. Anyone can be convicted of child porn for just receiving a picture without soliciting it.

I should have included this article and others like it:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29613192/

This week, prosecutors in Greensburg, Pennsylvania charged six teens ranging in age from 14 to 17 with creating, distributing and possessing child pornography, after three girls were found to have taken photos of themselves in the nude or partially nude and e-mailed them to friends, including three boys who are among the defendants.

http://news.cnet.com/Police-blotter-...3-6157857.html

What: Teenagers taking risque photos of themselves are prosecuted for violating child pornography laws.


...

On March 25, 2004, Amber and Jeremy took digital photos of themselves naked and engaged in unspecified "sexual behavior." The two sent the photos from a computer at Amber's house to Jeremy's personal e-mail address. Neither teen showed the photographs to anyone else.



Court records don't say exactly what happened next--perhaps the parents wanted to end the relationship and raised the alarm--but somehow Florida police learned about the photos.

I also brought up the idea that art which eroticses youths and is lauded could be viewed as child porn nowadays if made by a contemporary artist.

This thread is just about laws and attitudes towards child pornography, and whether or not they go too far.





Okay, I made this thread rather hastily in a rather sleepy state, so it's possible that I didn't include enough information, and there was little reason to mention my cousin's situation. But still, thread's subject is obvious. I suppose I made the false assumption that people were actually paying attention to the news, as child pornography laws have been a very active topic of discussion.

This seems pretty straight forward. I'll quote your first link, because it pretty much sums up the problem.

“The punishment doesn’t fit the crime,” Walters told Lauer, addressing the growing number of teens and young adults being charged as sex offenders for sexting pictures. “These child porn laws were designed to punish a very different behavior. A kid sending a racy picture is a very different behavior than a pedophile forcing a toddler to perform a sex act on camera. That’s what these child porn laws were designed to address.”

On the other hand, there is a valid point that unscrupulous and immature teenagers could, theoretically, end up producing pornography of themselves and selling it to... how shall I say, enthusiasts? I'm still of the opinion that people around that age lack the foresight and maturity necessary to deal with the potential ramifications of either nude photos of themselves, or photos of them engaging in sexual acts. Some people will react poorly to their nudes being passed around, something that is almost inevitable, considering how long and how volatile high school relationships tend to be.

As a sideline to the girl who committed suicide for having her nudes getting sent around the school and the subsequent bullying (as mentioned in the first article), there was a girl named Sarah who went to a Catholic school in Oshawa who had pretty much the same thing happen. She did a strip-tease video and sent it to friends, who sent it to friends who sent it to friends who turned out to be rivals of Sarah. They printed off posters with screenshots of the video, and added captions like "10 cent whore" "filthy fucking slut" "nasty ho-bag" and other insulting combinations I can't particularly remember. These posters were distributed at random throughout the school, and Sarah, already possessing a reputation for being a disgusting slut (which was well-earned, I have to admit) didn't have much to say about it.

Interestingly enough, neither did the police or the school administration, as there was no outcry about bullying, no charges or investigation of child pornography (lurid in the light that one of the teachers there moved to another school after earning a reputation among the girls for being a lecherous bastard), and I'm pretty sure the incident has pretty much been entirely forgotten.


on the notion of older art eroticizing youth, I'm pretty sure there are cases of photographers doing artistic nudes with underaged models that were accused of creating child pornography, but I can't remember their names, so yes, the stigma is certainly still being applied. I would like to know your stance on the painting, sycld. Do you find them to be works of art, or the lecherous wish of a pervert brought artistically to life?

Originally Posted by coqauvin

On the other hand, there is a valid point that unscrupulous and immature teenagers could, theoretically, end up producing pornography of themselves and selling it to... how shall I say, enthusiasts? I'm still of the opinion that people around that age lack the foresight and maturity necessary to deal with the potential ramifications of either nude photos of themselves, or photos of them engaging in sexual acts. Some people will react poorly to their nudes being passed around, something that is almost inevitable, considering how long and how volatile high school relationships tend to be.

These kids are not making pornography and selling it on the internet. And so are we going to arrest kids for committing every stupid action that just hurts themselves?

Of course, kids hurting other kids (i.e. bullying) is not a crime. That makes sense.

As a sideline to the girl who committed suicide for having her nudes getting sent around the school and the subsequent bullying (as mentioned in the first article), there was a girl named Sarah who went to a Catholic school in Oshawa who had pretty much the same thing happen. She did a strip-tease video and sent it to friends, who sent it to friends who sent it to friends who turned out to be rivals of Sarah. They printed off posters with screenshots of the video, and added captions like "10 cent whore" "filthy fucking slut" "nasty ho-bag" and other insulting combinations I can't particularly remember.

So your solution would have been to arrest her for making this video. Think about that for a second.

already possessing a reputation for being a disgusting slut (which was well-earned, I have to admit)

And that's completely unnecessary.

on the notion of older art eroticizing youth, I'm pretty sure there are cases of photographers doing artistic nudes with underaged models that were accused of creating child pornography, but I can't remember their names, so yes, the stigma is certainly still being applied. I would like to know your stance on the painting, sycld. Do you find them to be works of art, or the lecherous wish of a pervert brought artistically to life?

One such photographer was Lewis Carroll.

As for Caravaggio, these paintings among others are said to be some of the most influential of the entire Western cannon by other great artists and art experts. So what do you think my opinion of them is, even though they do so unabashedly eroticize young boys?

Originally Posted by Syme

But the kids being hit with these child pornography charges didn't (as far as I can tell) take nude photos of each other for this purpose. Surely the hypothetical scenario you've thought up here, which doesn't seem to describe the actual cases in question, doesn't justify charging a 16-year-old with child pornography for sending nude pic-messages to her boyfriend?

In this situation, no. But it begs the question of why the photographs are taken in the first place. If they were to be kept private, then theoretically, there is no problem. The issue here is that neither of them possesses the maturity level or foresight to see that those photos will not stay private. There is a reasonable expectation that either the photos will be shown to friends, either in confidence that is possible (I would say likely) to be broken, or out of spite because the relationship didn't go the way they wanted to.

Part of the issue with these cases is that the photographs had been uploaded to a computer and transferred over the internet, or else sent from cell phone to cell phone. The images are getting passed around and transferred, and I don't think it's unlikely that, given enough time and handling, they are just going to be posted publicly, on 4chan for an example.

Now let me temper this. I don't in any way believe that they should be charged with child pornography laws, because those were made to address the child pornographers and the abuse that is inherent in that industry. Those laws are made for a reason, and I understand that. At the same time, I don't think that kids should be photographing themselves nude and sending it out to people. There's something inappropriate about that as well, and it's not just overprudence - it's more the consequences that they'll have to face should (and they likely will) the photos get leaked. Some aren't strong enough to handle the aftermath, as was the case for Jesse Logan.

Originally Posted by Syme

I'm not sycld, but I'd call them art. It's not like nude paintings were otherwise scarce in the schools of art represented by the paintings in the OP. Subjects were often depicted nude, regardless of their age. If these artists were painting fully-clothed adults but demanding that their child models get naked, it might be different. But that's not how it was. They tended to paint adult subjects just as nude as those kids.

I was asking sycld about this because he brought up the images and mentioned their history, but still hasn't given any kind of real opinion on them or what he thinks about them, about why he appreciates them as art, and not because he's looking to get a reaction out of everyone with them.

Originally Posted by sycld

These kids are not making pornography and selling it on the internet. And so are we going to arrest kids for committing every stupid action that just hurts themselves?

No, but the law has to be reasonable about forseeing possible directions questionable actions can take. As was listed on the majority decision in the second link you gave:

Originally Posted by Excerpt of majority decision

As previously stated, the reasonable expectation that the material will ultimately be disseminated is by itself a compelling state interest for preventing the production of this material. In addition, the statute was intended to protect minors like appellant and her co-defendant from their own lack of judgment...

Appellant was simply too young to make an intelligent decision about engaging in sexual conduct and memorializing it. Mere production of these videos or pictures may also result in psychological trauma to the teenagers involved.

Further, if these pictures are ultimately released, future damage may be done to these minors' careers or personal lives. These children are not mature enough to make rational decisions concerning all the possible negative implications of producing these videos.

In addition, the two defendants placed the photos on a computer and then, using the Internet, transferred them to another computer. Not only can the two computers be hacked, but by transferring the photos using the Net, the photos may have been and perhaps still are accessible to the provider and/or other individuals. Computers also allow for long-term storage of information which may then be disseminated at some later date. The state has a compelling interest in seeing that material which will have such negative consequences is never produced.

Now while the computer part seems a little reactionary, like old relics recoiling and responding to something they don't understand, the sentiment is still the same. These kids are to young to understand the consequences of their actions, and how far down the line they will stretch. But you can read all that, so I'm not going to reiterate it.

Originally Posted by sycld

Of course, kids hurting other kids (i.e. bullying) is not a crime. That makes sense.

And when did I say that? Stop trying to wind me up.

Originally Posted by sycld

So your solution would have been to arrest her for making this video. Think about that for a second.

I didn't say that, but I guess you could pick that sentiment out of what I wrote. No, my intention was to provide an anecdote from my own life and give you the results of what happened there, and to compare that with the reported incident you mentioned in one of your links. Personally, I thought what happened was a little reprehensible, but nothing ever seemed to come from it.

Originally Posted by sycld

And that's completely unnecessary.

Not if you knew her. Get off your high horse.

Originally Posted by sycld

One such photographer was Lewis Carroll.

As for Caravaggio, these paintings among others are said to be some of the most influential of the entire Western cannon by other great artists and art experts. So what do you think my opinion of them is, even though they do so unabashedly eroticize young boys?

I don't know what you opinion is, that is why I asked you. I'm a little surprised you haven't given any kind of reason for it yet.

Originally Posted by coqauvin

No, but the law has to be reasonable about forseeing possible directions questionable actions can take. As was listed on the majority decision in the second link you gave:



Now while the computer part seems a little reactionary, like old relics recoiling and responding to something they don't understand, the sentiment is still the same. These kids are to young to understand the consequences of their actions, and how far down the line they will stretch. But you can read all that, so I'm not going to reiterate it.

Thanks for writing my response to this in the same post:

Now let me temper this. I don't in any way believe that they should be charged with child pornography laws, because those were made to address the child pornographers and the abuse that is inherent in that industry. Those laws are made for a reason, and I understand that. At the same time, I don't think that kids should be photographing themselves nude and sending it out to people. There's something inappropriate about that as well, and it's not just overprudence - it's more the consequences that they'll have to face should (and they likely will) the photos get leaked. Some aren't strong enough to handle the aftermath, as was the case for Jesse Logan.

The counter to this is sex education, not prosecution. Or are we going to start criminalizing unprotected sex and teen pregnancy as well?

Teens taking pics of themselves naked and sending them around is a bad thing, but we're talking about prosecution of this action based on laws meant to protect children from child pornographers. In other words, we're talking about application of the law in exactly the way it is written in the legal codes. If these laws are applicable to these instances, as is born out by the fact that these prosecutions have been successful, then there is obviously something wrong with the law.

I was asking sycld about this because he brought up the images and mentioned their history, but still hasn't given any kind of real opinion on them or what he thinks about them, about why he appreciates them as art, and not because he's looking to get a reaction out of everyone with them.

What sort of "reaction" do you think I'm trying to get out of people, exactly?

Not if you knew her. Get off your high horse.

I misread the statement; I thought it was referring to the girl that committed suicide, not the one you knew.

I don't know what you opinion is, that is why I asked you. I'm a little surprised you haven't given any kind of reason for it yet.

You mean that the opinions of European art scholars and other great European artists is not reason enough? The fact that Caravaggio was a profound influence on such artists as Bernini, Rembrandt, Velasquez, and Rubens is not reason enough to not denounce his works as prurient and lurid?

I have no clue what other reason I'm suppose to give. Do you want me to tell you why I love his art, or why these works are hung in museums as some of the greatest examples of Western painting? Well, why is any artist great or influential? Just try to answer me that question.

The fact is that despite the fact that these are unabashed and overt displays of adolescence eroticized to a shocking extent in my opinion, they are still today touted as some of the greatest works of art produced in the Western European tradition. If you disagree with that statement, you'll have to either contend that they are not great works of art, in which case you have to take on the established art community, or that they are not erotic, in which case I wish you good luck in trying to support such a claim.

Why SHOULD anyone have to explain why art depicting nude figures isn't pornographic? I don't get it at all. Isn't it obvious to any thinking person that nudity =/= pornography?

And sycld, I don't think it's even fair to say that those paintings "eroticise" adolescents, especially not "overtly" and "unabashedly". So yeah, even if coqauvin isn't willing to contend that claim, I am.

EDIT: Frankly, I don't see what the art has to do with the issue of hitting minors with kiddie porn charges for taking nude/sexual pictures. Seems totally unrelated to me.