Child pornography | What is classed as child porn?
51 replies, posted
[QUOTE=TheDivinity;32911339]This is sort of going off topic, but people say child porn is a big problem on the internet and it's becoming more frequent, but I see weird masochism shit more then anything else.
[/QUOTE]Because masochistic shit is legal.
TORnet has gigabytes of CP. See the thread in the news where anon hacked a cp site with over 100gb of data.
It's just that to host CP on the surface web you have to be a really brave motherfucker.
[QUOTE=David Tennant;32902978]What about a naked picture of a child on the internet not engaging in sexual acts?[/QUOTE]
Still counts if it is used in any sexual connotation i.e: for masturbation purposes. Trying to qualify it as not pornography ignores the fact that it still requires a child to be exploited.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;32914943]Still counts if it is used in any sexual connotation i.e: for masturbation purposes. Trying to qualify it as not pornography ignores the fact that it still requires a child to be exploited.[/QUOTE]
A nude picture of a child simply existing doesn't require exploitation of said child. Parents have baby photos of their kids in which they are quite often nude, so that renders that argument legally pointless. If you want to determine it based on 'whether or not you masturbate to it', that's also a pointless argument because it doesn't hold up to even the most basic scrutiny.
Is an image of a naked woman not porn as long as no one masturbates to it? Is a video of two people having sex not porn if no one masturbates to it? By your logic, a children's clothing ad can be child porn as long as someone masturbates to it.
Basically what I'm saying is that your idea of what is and is not child porn would be impossible to put into law.
There's definitely more of a grey area than governments today allow, like baby pictures, and, more controversially, sexting.
I don't think children engaging in sexual activity is inherently wrong.
Children reach sexual maturity at 11-15 years old.
However, exploiting children, especially sexual exploitation, is very very wrong.
So yes, I am strongly against child pornography.
I am not, however, against sexting and stupid shit teens do to get themselves in trouble. Kids will be kids and it's a part of growing up.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32915008]A nude picture of a child simply existing doesn't require exploitation of said child. Parents have baby photos of their kids in which they are quite often nude, so that renders that argument legally pointless. If you want to determine it based on 'whether or not you masturbate to it', that's also a pointless argument because it doesn't hold up to even the most basic scrutiny.
Is an image of a naked woman not porn as long as no one masturbates to it? Is a video of two people having sex not porn if no one masturbates to it? By your logic, a children's clothing ad can be child porn as long as someone masturbates to it.
Basically what I'm saying is that your idea of what is and is not child porn would be impossible to put into law.[/QUOTE]
I knew someone would come along and talk about family photos or even educational ones. Like you said, it is impossible to have a 100% clear cut definition, but possessing images of naked children unrelated to you is pretty damning (unless of course they are for a legitimate educational purpose). If we are talking in terms of photos expressly produced for the purpose of the child's nakedness then it does require a degree of exploitation. I never intended to imply it would be anything but a case by case basis.
Further I may not have clarified my logic enough, as demonstrated by your rightful refutation. There needs to be criteria to be checked off before it becomes a case of child pornography, does it represent a child in a suggestive manner? was it produced for sexual gratification? if not, is it being illegitimately used for sexual gratification? (this of course applies to child pornography, not adult pornography which is irrelevant) if you don't have either of those you don't have child pornography. This of course delves into the the very grey area of jailbait and 'clothed' pictures, which furthers supports the prosecution being on a case by case basis.
In my opinion it should be classified as child pornography if it depicts a [i]real[/i] child is being sexually exploited in some way i.e. by someone far more sexually mature than themselves.
Whether a child is not being physically harmed is irrelevant because the child does not have the necessary understanding to give meaningful consent to the act, but nudity alone should not constitute child pornography.
Nude photos are fine, even ones that are intended to look sexual. People tend to agree with this matter when it comes to teenagers. The sexual part doesn't really apply to younger kids as they aren't likely to act in a way that would be considered sexual without coercion or force, both of which should be punishable in instances not relating to homesteading. For example, Forcing a child to take a bath is acceptable as it is apart of taking care of the child. It is fine for the homesteader to take a picture of the child naked in the tub, otherwise the homesteader can't take a picture of the child at all. Now if for some reason most people believe the photo looked sexual, it would be fine as there was no force in matter. The photo should allowed to be sold, otherwise no photos of children should be allowed to be sold.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;32916319]I knew someone would come along and talk about family photos or even educational ones. Like you said, it is impossible to have a 100% clear cut definition, but possessing images of naked children unrelated to you is pretty damning (unless of course they are for a legitimate educational purpose). If we are talking in terms of photos expressly produced for the purpose of the child's nakedness then it does require a degree of exploitation. I never intended to imply it would be anything but a case by case basis.
Further I may not have clarified my logic enough, as demonstrated by your rightful refutation. There needs to be criteria to be checked off before it becomes a case of child pornography, does it represent a child in a suggestive manner? was it produced for sexual gratification? if not, is it being illegitimately used for sexual gratification? (this of course applies to child pornography, not adult pornography which is irrelevant) if you don't have either of those you don't have child pornography. This of course delves into the the very grey area of jailbait and 'clothed' pictures, which furthers supports the prosecution being on a case by case basis.[/QUOTE]
9 out of 10 times I'm willing to bet it will end up a grey-filled legislative mess where someone has to make a moral judgment of the 'criminal', and frankly I don't think that's worth it.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;32916319]I knew someone would come along and talk about family photos or even educational ones. Like you said, it is impossible to have a 100% clear cut definition, but possessing images of naked children unrelated to you is pretty damning (unless of course they are for a legitimate educational purpose). If we are talking in terms of photos expressly produced for the purpose of the child's nakedness then it does require a degree of exploitation. I never intended to imply it would be anything but a case by case basis.
Further I may not have clarified my logic enough, as demonstrated by your rightful refutation. There needs to be criteria to be checked off before it becomes a case of child pornography, does it represent a child in a suggestive manner? was it produced for sexual gratification? [B]if not, is it being illegitimately used for sexual gratification?[/B] (this of course applies to child pornography, not adult pornography which is irrelevant) if you don't have either of those you don't have child pornography. This of course delves into the the very grey area of jailbait and 'clothed' pictures, which furthers supports the prosecution being on a case by case basis.[/QUOTE]
Bolded part is strange logic that he already pointed out. If it does not represent a child in a suggestive manner, or if it was not produced for sexual gratification, then it [I]isn't child porn.[/I] Just because someone decides to use it for sexual gratification doesn't make the picture into child pornography.
If that logic was applied in the law, then you would be allowed to have a picture of a child, but not allowed to masturbate to it: As soon as you did, you would have made it into child porn. Hell, whether something is "illegitimately used for sexual gratification" is also extremely vague. How would you tell? What if a person didn't masturbate to it, but rather just looked at it while having sexual thoughts?
If you have an innocent picture of a child, you can do bloody anything you like to it and it will still just be an innocent picture of a child. You shouldn't be able to prosecute people for their intentions on having innocent pictures. You prosecute them based on what it [I]is[/I], not what they do with it.
I was referring to a naked child but whatever
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;32920568]I was referring to a naked child but whatever[/QUOTE]
Same story. You can't classify any picture as something based on what a person does with it. It is illegal to posess child pornography, so people who have child pornography are prosecuted for it. But if an innocent picture (even if it has nudity) can be child pornography based solely on what a person does with it, then that seems like thought crime to me.
Of course it isn't so simple, some nude pictures may be innocent while others are clearly more suggestive, so there is room for discussion on a case by case basis. But making the decision based on what a person did with the picture is just wrong.
Intent is used as a basis for legal arguments all the time though?
edit:
That fits in with case by case actually, problem solved!
Any act involving someone older than 25 with someone that is under the age of 17 should be wrong. I can see someone who is 19 though going with a 16 year old should be the biggest stretch or 21 with 17.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;32931265]Intent is used as a basis for legal arguments all the time though?
edit:
That fits in with case by case actually, problem solved![/QUOTE]
No, problem certainly not solved.
How do you think it's even going to come through? Let's just say there is someone who masturbates to what is an otherwise innocent picture. How're they going to get caught unless there's some kind of surveillance in place? The existence of the picture obviously wouldn't be indicative of crime, and is in and of itself a victimless crime. You really want to legislate that?
While a touchy subject I think it is when a child is making a seductive move/action when they are not in the mental capacity to not fully realize what they are doing
People that talk about child porn alot are closet pedos, like closet gays. They think that if they say how bad something is, people won't accuse them of it.
IMO, lolicon, shotacon, and nude pictures (as long as they aren't for sexual purposes.) are ok. However, if its a real child engaging in sexual activities, than I think it should be classified as child porn.
[QUOTE=The Aussie;32903022]IN my opinion, child porn is classed as a person who looks young, (1(oh my fucking god i hope that doesn't exist) to 12 years old) although, i think porn of pubescent or post-pubescent porn is different. If a child is naked, it does not necessarily make it porn, but a child is being penetrated or forced to preform a sexual act on another, regardless of the second parties age, i think that is child porn.[/QUOTE]
Wrong, there's been a specific case where the person was let off because he went for some Brazilian midget porn and they thought it was a kid, turned out to be an 21 woman and they let him off scot free.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32932485]No, problem certainly not solved.
How do you think it's even going to come through? Let's just say there is someone who masturbates to what is an otherwise innocent picture. How're they going to get caught unless there's some kind of surveillance in place? The existence of the picture obviously wouldn't be indicative of crime, and is in and of itself a victimless crime. You really want to legislate that?[/QUOTE]
It would be a case by case basis on whether the person possessing the image has a legitimate reason to own the image, this is of course talking about images of naked children, jailbait, lolicon or shopping guides are irrelevant.
edit:
this is shit the legal system has sorted out anyway so cool, it doesn't matter
I hope to god that they don't impose CP laws on just nude pictures. I have Nirvana's Nevermind album, and that has a naked baby swimming and the dick showing and all.
Everything erotical containing a person that has not been through puberty.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.