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

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.