NationStates Jolt Archive

...they are damn well charged with it, as they should be!

‘Sexting’ surprise: Teens face child porn charges
6 Pa. high school students busted after sharing nude photos via cell phones

In an unusual legal case arising from the increasingly popular practice known as “sexting,” six Pennsylvania high school students are facing child pornography charges after three teenage girls allegedly took nude or semi-nude photos of themselves and shared them with male classmates via their cell phones.

Hysteria, anyone?

Link. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28679588/)

When you can't find a law you like, just whack it with a bigger law in the hopes that it will stick. *sighs* Idiocy at its finest.

When you can't find a law you like, just whack it with a bigger law in the hopes that it will stick. *sighs* Idiocy at its finest.

What's interesting is how the images were found. Evidentally, they must've been betraying the students privacy via trolling the files on their cellphone, if cops had found the evidence the same way, it would've been inadmissable.

Really? Child pr0n? Are you kidding me?

Zero Tolerance Policy at its finest and most ridiculously extreme.

I mean...really? 16 year olds showing other 16 year olds their boobies is child pr0n? Are you kidding? I mean...are you kidding me?

But Patrick Artur, a Philadelphia defense attorney who by his reckoning has handled at least 80 child pornography cases, said the prosecution of minors for photos they took themselves runs counter to the purpose of both state and federal child pornography laws: Preventing the sexual abuse of children by “dirty old men in raincoats.”

Exactly. Personally, I don't see much difference between two 16 year olds having sex then them having naked photos of one another. I understand they're trying to "protect the kids" but really, there is far too much of a "protect the kids" ideology these days as it is. Sharing naked photos can be harmless, or harmful. Its all up to the maturity of the individuals.

Zero Tolerance Policy at its finest and most ridiculously extreme.

Apparenty nudity is porn as well, now.

Exactly. Personally, I don't see much difference between two 16 year olds having sex then them having naked photos of one another. I understand they're trying to "protect the kids" but really, there is far too much of a "protect the kids" ideology these days as it is. Sharing naked photos can be harmless, or harmful. Its all up to the maturity of the individuals.

Damn straight it runs counter to the intent of the law. This is most likely some moralist who thinks destroying a few horney 16 year old's lives will ensure the moral fiber of their children in the future.

Exactly. Personally, I don't see much difference between two 16 year olds having sex then them having naked photos of one another. I understand they're trying to "protect the kids" but really, there is far too much of a "protect the kids" ideology these days as it is. Sharing naked photos can be harmless, or harmful. Its all up to the maturity of the individuals.

Hear, hear!

Damn straight it runs counter to the intent of the law. This is most likely some moralist who thinks destroying a few horney 16 year old's lives will ensure the moral fiber of their children in the future.

Or given the trend amongst the loudest outcriers in general, some moralist who thinks destroying a few horny 16-year old lives will ensure the moral fibers of their children in the future... then sneak off to watch kiddie porn or touch a few minors themselves when they think nobody's looking.

Apparenty nudity is porn as well, now.

True. Nudity isn't always porn. However, its pretty clear these photos were intended to arouse.

Damn straight it runs counter to the intent of the law. This is most likely some moralist who thinks destroying a few horney 16 year old's lives will ensure the moral fiber of their children in the future.

Right. "Think of the children! The poor children!"

"Ma'am.. we are.. we're putting them in jail."

yeah, that's dumb.

This is a case of using the letter of the law to violate the spirit of the law. I think the US needs to back away from child porn possession charges as it is prosecuting them.

16 years old is child porn? I thought that was the limit, since that is the sex limit.

16 years old is child porn? I thought it was 18.

picture of an 18 yr old is not child porn. picture of a 16 year old is child porn.

I'd also like to see someone proclaim with a straight face that potentially classifying teens as Sex Offenders for the rest of their lives just for showing naked photos to classmates or seeing them is justified.

I'd also like to see someone proclaim with a straight face that potentially classifying teens as Sex Offenders for the rest of their lives just for showing naked photos to classmates or seeing them is justified.

it is. those teen girls should have to live with me in my halfway house too for the next 5 years.

it is. those teen girls should have to live with me in my halfway house too for the next 5 years.

And while we're at it, instead of throwing nanny shows at screaming brats why don't we sentence them to a couple months at Neverland Ranch? That'll show 'em.

I'm no friend to pedophiles and the consumers of child pornography, but tbh, I think the criteria that governs child pornography should be that the person depicted hasn't yet gone through puberty yet.

I'm no friend to pedophiles and the consumers of child pornography, but tbh, I think the criteria that governs child pornography should be that the person depicted hasn't yet gone through puberty yet.

atleast for not engaged in sexual act stuff.

...........This is Retarded...Its the only thing I can say about it...

This flagrant legalistic limbo dance brings up something on a related note.

If teenagers sending each other naked pictures is successfully prosecuted as Child Porn, that means there's a whole bunch of diaper commercials that's basically a kiddy-porn ring waiting to be busted.

This flagrant legalistic limbo dance brings up something on a related note.

If teenagers sending each other naked pictures is successfully prosecuted as Child Porn, that means there's a whole bunch of diaper commercials that's basically a kiddy-porn ring waiting to be busted.

But they are not trying to engage in dirty, filthy, sinful, non-reproductive sex before marriage with each other, so its different.

Diaper commercials are not a threat to good Christian morals. Yet.

I'm no friend to pedophiles and the consumers of child pornography, but tbh, I think the criteria that governs child pornography should be that the person depicted hasn't yet gone through puberty yet.

I don't want to be that guy, but it's been shown (though I don't have a source on hand) that increased access to pornography leads to decreased sex attacks. Of course, actual child pornography is replusive, but I believe things like Lolita shouldn't be illegal.

"Think of the children!" :rolleyes:

Apparently it's preferable to ruin a kid's future by slapping them with a criminal record and a sex offender registration than to just deal with the fact that they've sent nekkid pics of themselves out head-on.

Or, heaven forbid, not give them cell phones with cameras built in if they won't refrain.

But they are not trying to engage in dirty, filthy, sinful, non-reproductive sex before marriage with each other, so its different.

Diaper commercials are not a threat to good Christian morals. Yet.

Considering that it was just naked pics and not actual invitations for a bathroom banger, that would be like calling Playboy 'Hardcore Pornography'.

"Think of the children!" :rolleyes:

Apparently it's preferable to ruin a kid's future by slapping them with a criminal record and a sex offender registration than to just deal with the fact that they've sent nekkid pics of themselves out head-on.

Its to protect the chastity of our future daughters!







I could even say that with a straight face.

Or, heaven forbid, not give them cell phones with cameras built in if they won't refrain.

Give them a cell phone without a camera? Like, omgeeee do thy even mke thos nymore?

I don't want to be that guy, but it's been shown (though I don't have a source on hand) that increased access to pornography leads to decreased sex attacks. Of course, actual child pornography is replusive, but I believe things like Lolita shouldn't be illegal.

That's very true. I actually watched a Law and Order episode recently about a teenager who liked little kids, and he went to this website created by an adult who liked little kids, but thought it was terrible to touch them. So, later, the owner of the website ended up murdering the teenager, because the teenager actually molested the a kid, instead of "looking, but not touching". Just food for thought.


"Think of the children!" :rolleyes:

Apparently it's preferable to ruin a kid's future by slapping them with a criminal record and a sex offender registration than to just deal with the fact that they've sent nekkid pics of themselves out head-on.

Or, heaven forbid, not give them cell phones with cameras built in if they won't refrain.

Exactly. Instead of thinking through the consequences, the law system is being as immature as the kids may be by ruining their lives.

Indeed. It seems like everyone... even elementary school kids are getting pricey cell phones. Why?

I don't want to be that guy, but it's been shown (though I don't have a source on hand) that increased access to pornography leads to decreased sex attacks. Of course, actual child pornography is replusive, but I believe things like Lolita shouldn't be illegal.

Lolita is just as disgusting as 'real' child pornography.

The girls were 14 and 15, the males 16 and 17. The age of consent in PA is 16.


I don't know if that has anything to do with it, but that might be what they're basing their case on. Which would be idiotic to say the least.

I don't get how these prosecutors sleep at night. How could they think of ruining these kid's lives into their 20s over this shit and it would be beneficial to society as a whole?

That's very true. I actually watched a Law and Order episode recently about a teenager who liked little kids, and he went to this website created by an adult who liked little kids, but thought it was terrible to touch them. So, later, the owner of the website ended up murdering the teenager, because the teenager actually molested the a kid, instead of "looking, but not touching". Just food for thought.

Law and Order...

Last time I checked that was an entirely fictional TV series.

Lolita is just as disgusting as 'real' child pornography.

This is true, but I believe his point was that prevention of actual children being violated should be the primary concern. Sometimes you have to compromise to get what you want.

Lolita is just as disgusting as 'real' child pornography.

Indeed, but I'd rather have that than actual abuse of children, wouldn't you?

Law and Order...

Last time I checked that was an entirely fictional TV series.

You completely missed the point of the anecdote.

The girls were 14 and 15, the males 16 and 17. The age of consent in PA is 16.


I don't know if that has anything to do with it, but that might be what they're basing their case on. Which would be idiotic to say the least.

I don't get how these prosecutors sleep at night. How could they think of ruining these kid's lives into their 20s over this shit and it would be beneficial to society as a whole?

Only their 20's? Imagine when theyre in their thirties and forties having to knock on people's doors and tell them theyre 'sex offenders'....

1. Having tried to research more about this case on the interweb, it is not clear to me whether the teens have merely been arrested on these charges or whether the are actually being prosecuted. Regardless, the charges would be brought in juvenile court.

2. Although I don't support convicting these children for their behavior, let us not act like it isn't dangerous behavior that should be discouraged.

3. This is clearly a case where prosecutorial discretion should be used so that these children are not imprisoned, have serious convictions put on their record, or forced to register as sex offenders. No change in the law itself is necessary and I would oppose some ham-handed attempt to create a "child-produced porn isn't child porn" exception to existing law.

4. On the issue of how authorities found out about this. The OP story explains:

Police told the station that the photos were discovered in October, after school officials seized a cell phone from a male student who was using it in violation of school rules and found a nude photo of a classmate on it. Police were called in and their investigation led them to other phones containing more photos, it said.

Although more facts may be developed, it doesn't appear any illegal searches were conducted.

Only their 20's? Imagine when theyre in their thirties and forties having to knock on people's doors and tell them theyre 'sex offenders'....

It would be a great example for any teenage daughters living at the homes they knock on. why are you a sex offender? because i took a picture of my boobs when i was 15.

Indeed, but I'd rather have that than actual abuse of children, wouldn't you?

I think there are other ways, better ways, that we can protect children, without resorting to giving into these people's mental disturbances.

It would be a great example for any teenage daughters living at the homes they knock on. why are you a sex offender? because i took a picture of my boobs when i was 15.

Whats sad is I can actually picture some Fundamentalist using that as a reasonable argument, lol...

I don't want to be that guy, but it's been shown (though I don't have a source on hand) that increased access to pornography leads to decreased sex attacks. Of course, actual child pornography is replusive, but I believe things like Lolita shouldn't be illegal.

The effects of adult pornography are debatable, but irrelevant.

Child pornography is shown to both cause and have a high correlation with child molestation.

What do you mean by "things like Lolita"? The book, a movie, or sexual obsession (and sex) with a 12-year-old?

Only their 20's? Imagine when theyre in their thirties and forties having to knock on people's doors and tell them theyre 'sex offenders'....

"But he noted that convictions would have "serious, serious implications," including forcing them having to register as sexual offenders for at least 10 years."

I would think they'd at least go with the minimum. Or hope, I should say.

I think there are other ways, better ways, that we can protect children, without resorting to giving into these people's mental disturbances.

Such as?

You can't really blame them--it's part of their culture.

The effects of adult pornography are debatable, but irrelevant.

Child pornography is shown to both cause and have a high correlation with child molestation.

What do you mean by "things like Lolita"? The book, a movie, or sexual obsession (and sex) with a 12-year-old?

I can see reason for a correlation, but could you please back up the causation claim?

When I things like lolita, I meant images depicting child pornography in a way that doesn't actually abuse children.

I can see reason for a correlation, but could you please back up the causation claim?

Sure. I'll get back to you on that shortly.

When I things like lolita, I meant images depicting child pornography in a way that doesn't actually abuse children.

Um. So sex with a 12-year-old is OK if she is "seductive" and "willing"? 'Cuz that's what happens in Lolita (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolita).

Regardless of what you call it, what exactly is child pornography that doesn't abuse children?

Regardless of what you call it, what exactly is child pornography that doesn't abuse children?


There is a lot of "barely legal", etc etc porn out there that depicts 18 year old women as being younger than that. I think that might be what he's referring to.

You can't really blame them--it's part of their culture.

That's right. They go to Sierra High School, which like Sierra Leone, encourages child molestastion, apparently.

Sure. I'll get back to you on that shortly.



Um. So sex with a 12-year-old is OK if she is "seductive" and "willing"? 'Cuz that's what happens in Lolita (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolita).

Regardless of what you call it, what exactly is child pornography that doesn't abuse children?

Did I not make it clear enough, I mean actual photographs of real life children being abused. I'd much prefer it be an imaginary character than a real child, don't you?

There is a lot of "barely legal", etc etc porn out there that depicts 18 year old women as being younger than that. I think that might be what he's referring to.

Ah, you're off there, that's a completely different subject.

There is a lot of "barely legal", etc etc porn out there that depicts 18 year old women as being younger than that. I think that might be what he's referring to.

Is it true that artificially generated images of non-existant children are regarded differently in this aspect?

Like "child porn" of a child that is just a CGI construct has some separate status under the law?

There is a lot of "barely legal", etc etc porn out there that depicts 18 year old women as being younger than that. I think that might be what he's referring to.

That, by definition, isn't child pornography as it doesn't involve images of children.

Moreover, "barely legal" porn almost by definition is intended to depict women that are of legal age to engage in sex.

Lolita is just as disgusting as 'real' child pornography.


And yet a movie that portrays the protagonist as a guy who lusts after an underage cheerleader gets an Academy Award. On the other hand, if that girl had been but a couple years younger...

There is a lot of "barely legal", etc etc porn out there that depicts 18 year old women as being younger than that. I think that might be what he's referring to.

And why are you attacking my Girls Gone Wild collection? :mad: lol

Is it true that artificially generated images of non-existant children are regarded differently in this aspect?

Like "child porn" of a child that is just a CGI construct has some separate status under the law?

I guess you missed out on this (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/simpsonsstyle-cartoon-is-child-porn/2008/12/08/1228584707575.html).

EDIT: Quoted wrong post

And why are you attacking my Girls Gone Wild collection? :mad: lol

Okay. I'm sorry. I think I've not made myself clear either. Yes, right, barely legal refers to 18+. My mistake.

However, there is porn of women who ARE 18, but pretend to be younger. That is what I meant.

Forgive me for recycling some material from other debates in these forums, but here is some data on child pornography, particularly how it causes harm to children separate from whether a child is harmed in its production.

Harms from the possession, sale, use, and distribution of child pornography include:


prohibiting the possession, sale, use, and distribution of child pornography is critical to preventing and punishing the production of child pornography. You can't completely divorce the source from the demand. The advertising and selling of child pornography provide an economic motive for and are thus an integral part of the production of such materials.


child pornography is often used as part of a method of seducing other children into sexual activity; a child who is reluctant to engage in sexual activity with an adult, or to pose for sexually explicit photographs, can sometimes be convinced by viewing depictions of other children `having fun' participating in such activity. More specifically, child pornography is used by child molesters to:


Demonstrate sex acts to children. Offenders commonly use pornography to teach or give instructions to naïve children about how to masturbate, perform oral sex and/or engage in sexual intercourse.


Lower the sexual inhibitions of children. Some children naturally fear sexual activities. Some offenders show pictures of other children engaging in sexual activities to overcome these fears, indicating to their intended victims that it is all right to have sex with an adult because lots of other boys and girls do the same thing.


Desensitize children to sex. Offenders commonly show child pornography to their intended victims to expose them to sexual acts before they are naturally curious about such activities.


Sexually arouse children. Offenders commonly use pornographic images of other children to arouse victims, particularly those in adolescence.



child pornography is often used by pedophiles and child sexual abusers to stimulate and whet their own sexual appetites, and as a model for sexual acting out with children; such use of child pornography can desensitize the viewer to the pathology of sexual abuse or exploitation of children, so that it can become acceptable to and even preferred by the viewer

See, e.g., link (http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress02/heimbach050102.htm)

For your further consideration, the following is from the government's brief in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition:

A wealth of evidence supports Congress’s finding that pedophiles use child pornography to seduce children into sexual activity. Researchers and prosecutors who testified at the Senate Hearing informed Congress unequivocally that pedophiles use child pornography as a method of seduction.4

4 Senate Hearing 35 (statement of professor of psychology
Dr. Victor Cline) (Child pornography is used “to seduce children into
engaging in sexual acts” with adults.); id. at 96-97 (testimony of Bruce A. Taylor,
President and Chief Counsel of the National Law Center for Children and
Families) (“Actual or simulated child pornography is shown to convince
the child that other children regularly participate in sexual activities with
adults or peers. * * * Continued exposure to the pornography lowers the
inhibitions of the child to a point where he allows the molester to kiss and
touch him sexually. Eventually, if successful, the seduction process
progresses to more explicit activity between the child victim and adult or
other children, using the pornography as instructional tools.”) (footnote
omitted); id. at 20 (statement of Deputy Chief Postal Inspector Jeffrey J.
Dupilka) (“Child molesters use kiddie porn to seduce children into
participating in sexual activity with them.”); id. at 18 (statement of
Deputy Assistant Attorney General Kevin U. DiGregory) (“Entirely
artificial images * * * can be used by pedophiles to seduce children”); id.
at 37 (testimony of Dee Jepsen, President of Enough is Enough)
(“Therapists who treat sexually addicted persons declare, and studies
confirm, that pornography, often child pornography, does play a major role
in the molestation process with children.”).

Earlier federal investigations arrived at the same conclusion. In 1986, the Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography found “substantial evidence that photographs of children engaged in sexual activity are used as tools for further molestation of other children.” Final Report, supra, at 411.5

5 See Final Report, supra, at 411 (“Children are shown pictures of
other children engaged in sexual activity, with the aim of persuading
especially a quite young child that if it is in a picture, and if other children
are doing it, then it must be all right for this child to do it.”); id. at 649
(“Child pornography is often used as part of a method of seducing child
victims.”); ibid. (“A child who is reluctant to engage in sexual activity with
an adult or to pose for sexually explicit photos can sometimes be convinced
by viewing other children having ‘fun’ participating in the activity.”); ibid.
(“From a very early age children are taught to respect and believe
material contained in books and will thus have the same beliefs about child
pornography.”); id. at 649-650 (“Child pornography is * * * used to
illustrate the activities in which the pedophile wishes a child to engage. In
such instances a pedophile offender shows the child the pornography and
asks the child to imitate the pictures.”) (footnote omitted); id. at 649 (“A
pedophile offender will use child pornography in which the children appear
to be having a good time. The offender uses this material to lower the
inhibitions of the child and entice him or her into a desired activity.
Children who view this material are also subject to a certain amount of
peer pressure as they see other children engaged in the activity.”).

In that same year, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations also concluded that pedophiles use child pornography to “lower a child’s inhibitions,” and to “assist them in seducing their victims.” S. Rep. No. 537, 99th Cong., 2d Sess. 10, 44 (1986). This Court specifically noted in Osborne that “evidence suggests that pedophiles use child pornography to seduce other children into sexual activity,” 495 U.S. at 111, and the available secondary literature confirms that conclusion.6

6 Tim Tate, Child Pornography: An Investigation 118 (1990) (a
pedophile’s collection of child pornography is “a vital tool in the future
seduction of new victims”); Daniel Campagna & Donald Poffenberger, The
Sexual Trafficking in Children: An Investigation of the Child Sex Trade
118 (1988) (child pornography is used “to lower a minor’s inhibitions and
resistance to sex,” and “as an instructional aid to indoctrinate victims into
various sexual practices”); Shirley O’Brien, Child Pornography 89 (1983)
(child pornography is “used to convince [the] child that other children are
sexually active,” and as a tool to “lower[] [the] child’s inhibitions” against
sexual activity with adults); Seth Goldstein, The Sexual Exploitation of
Children: A Practical Guide To Assessment, Investigation, and Intervention
149 (2d ed. 1999) (child pornography “is often used by the child molester
to seduce the child”).

The reported cases also provide vivid examples of pedophiles using images of child pornography in the course of exploiting children sexually.7

7 See, e.g.., United States v. Snyder, 189 F.3d 640, 643 (7th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 527 U.S. 1097 (2000); Burke v. State, 27 S.W.3d 651, 655 (Tex. Ct. App. 2000), petition for discretionary review refused, Nos. 00-1869 & 00-1870 (Tex. Crim. App. Dec. 6, 2000).

Child pornography is not the only means by which pedophiles seduce children into sexual activity. The evidence before Congress, however, shows that it plays a significant role. One witness informed Congress that approximately one-third of the molesters in his practice had used child pornography as a seduction tool. Senate Hearing 116 (testimony of Dr. Cline). Another witness testified that a study of 1,400 sexual exploitation cases in Louisville, Kentucky “revealed that a significant number of molestation cases involve child pornography.” Id. at 92. The testimony that Congress heard is consistent with evidence from other sources. The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations reported that most of the child molesters that it interviewed “said they had used [such] material to lower the inhibitions of children or to coach them into posing for photographs.” S. Rep. No. 537, supra, at 9. And a study conducted by the Los Angeles Police Department’s Sexually Exploited Child Unit revealed that more than 20% of the 320 cases investigated by that unit during a ten-year period involved the use of child pornography. The Sexual Exploitation of Children, supra, at 149.

And yet a movie that portrays the protagonist as a guy who lusts after an underage cheerleader gets an Academy Award. On the other hand, if that girl had been but a couple years younger...

If you've ever seen the movie Laputa, its weird when all the 20-30 year old men were crushing on a 12/13 year old girl.

Okay. I'm sorry. I think I've not made myself clear either. Yes, right, barely legal refers to 18+. My mistake.

However, there is porn of women who ARE 18, but pretend to be younger. That is what I meant.

And then there was Traci Lords, who was UNDERAGE in all but ONE of her movies but everybody thought she was 18+. The entire porn industry almost got jailed over it until the defense pointed out that Traci had also successfully tricked the U.S. State Department into issuing her a passport with the wrong birthdate on it, so the case was dropped.

So if you own any old porn titles with Traci Lords in it, you probably have underage/illegal stuff there.

I guess you missed out on this (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/simpsonsstyle-cartoon-is-child-porn/2008/12/08/1228584707575.html).

EDIT: Quoted wrong post

We had a whole separate thread on that distinct issue.

If you've ever seen the movie Laputa, its weird when all the 20-30 year old men were crushing on a 12/13 year old girl.

Wow... that sounds... disturbing...

And then there was Traci Lords, who was UNDERAGE in all but ONE of her movies but everybody thought she was 18+. The entire porn industry almost got jailed over it until the defense pointed out that Traci had also successfully tricked the U.S. State Department into issuing her a passport with the wrong birthdate on it, so the case was dropped.

So if you own any old porn titles with Traci Lords in it, you probably have underage/illegal stuff there.

Ah, you're right. I remember reading about that.

-snip-

Hm, that does give me something to mull over, however it doesn't answer the question whether or not access to child pornography "whets the appetite" of potential paedophiles. Or at least I didn't see anything, but if there is, feel free to point it out.

Wow... that sounds... disturbing...

Oh, it's a lot more innocent than it sounds but it still has slightly weird vibes. I would show you the actual sequence to show how it was weird, but I can't be bothered breaking copyright laws just for you.

Hm, that does give me something to mull over, however it doesn't answer the question whether or not access to child pornography "whets the appetite" of potential paedophiles.

um...lolwut?...Does Legal porn "whet your appetite" for Women? If you watch a particularly good Porno are you going to stop hitting on Women?...

Why would it be different for pedophiles?

And then there was Traci Lords, who was UNDERAGE in all but ONE of her movies but everybody thought she was 18+. The entire porn industry almost got jailed over it until the defense pointed out that Traci had also successfully tricked the U.S. State Department into issuing her a passport with the wrong birthdate on it, so the case was dropped.

So if you own any old porn titles with Traci Lords in it, you probably have underage/illegal stuff there.

Um. There were convictions in the Traci Lords prosecutions. See link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._X-Citement_Video)

um...lolwut?...Does Legal porn "whet your appetite" for Women? If you watch a particularly good Porno are you going to stop hitting on Women?...

Why would it be different for pedophiles?

Did you read the whole thread where I mentioned rates of sexual assults go down in countries with more access to pornography?

Did you read the whole thread where I mentioned rates of sexual assults go down in countries with more access to pornography.

Which (1) you haven't backed up with any source (unlike your expectations of my assertions) and (2) isn't relevant.

Hm, that does give me something to mull over, however it doesn't answer the question whether or not access to child pornography "whets the appetite" of potential paedophiles. Or at least I didn't see anything, but if there is, feel free to point it out.

The "answer" is that it doesn't.

End of story.

picture of an 18 yr old is not child porn. picture of a 16 year old is child porn.

They can have sex, but they can't video tape it and post it on the internet so we all can enjoy from it? What was the world come to.

Did you read the whole thread where I mentioned rates of sexual assults go down in countries with more access to pornography?

But would the rates even be valid in a place where forms of pornography can be termed Sexual Assault or Abuse? Therefore by default a nation with less access to pornography would have a higher rate of abuse...

Hm, that does give me something to mull over, however it doesn't answer the question whether or not access to child pornography "whets the appetite" of potential paedophiles. Or at least I didn't see anything, but if there is, feel free to point it out.

I think you are moving the goalposts. I said that child pornography causes child molestation. I think I showed evidence to that effect.

Regardless, the point was the third main bullet in my post:

child pornography is often used by pedophiles and child sexual abusers to stimulate and whet their own sexual appetites, and as a model for sexual acting out with children; such use of child pornography can desensitize the viewer to the pathology of sexual abuse or exploitation of children, so that it can become acceptable to and even preferred by the viewer

The "answer" is that it doesn't.

End of story.

Evidence?

Such as?

Such as anything.

I don't believe in the whole idea that, if someone is addicted to, say drugs, that you should give them drugs so they'll stay off the streets or whatever, that's not really fixing the problem, it's just moving the 'teat' they're sucking at behind closed doors, where people don't know about it.

Which (1) you haven't backed up with any source (unlike your expectations of my assertions) and (2) isn't relevant.

http://www.slate.com/id/2152487
http://www.omninerd.com/articles/Watching_Porn_Reduces_Sex_Crimes - this links to the first articles and provides the source information (i.e. the actual results)
http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/online_artcls/pornography/prngrphy_rape_jp.html - And another study in Japan, where increased access to pornography, a decline in sexual attacks.

And how is it not relevant?

Such as anything.

I don't believe in the whole idea that, if someone is addicted to, say drugs, that you should give them drugs so they'll stay off the streets or whatever, that's not really fixing the problem, it's just moving the 'teat' they're sucking at behind closed doors, where people don't know about it.

Make them quit cold turkey. Then when they finally get their hands on some drugs, they overdose and die. Problem solved? Not really.

Not saying you should feed them drugs, but there sure are better ways to deal with the problem than that.

So horny high school kids who made a private mistake, which harms themselves alone, are now going to be convicted sex offenders? Well done, I was worried the law was too fair

I think you are moving the goalposts. I said that child pornography causes child molestation. I think I showed evidence to that effect.

Regardless, the point was the third main bullet in my post:

child pornography is often used by pedophiles and child sexual abusers to stimulate and whet their own sexual appetites, and as a model for sexual acting out with children; such use of child pornography can desensitize the viewer to the pathology of sexual abuse or exploitation of children, so that it can become acceptable to and even preferred by the viewer

That was what I intended to know the whole time. I'm sorry, I can't really continue arguing now as I've been awake for 34 hours. Thanks for the mental stimulation (no pun intended).

http://www.slate.com/id/2152487
http://www.omninerd.com/articles/Watching_Porn_Reduces_Sex_Crimes - this links to the first articles and provides the source information (i.e. the actual results)
http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/online_artcls/pornography/prngrphy_rape_jp.html - And another study in Japan, where increased access to pornography, a decline in sexual attacks.

And how is it not relevant?

I look at your links in a minute, but consider the basic difference:

Adult pornography doesn't involve depiction of anything inherently criminal and re-enacting adult pornography can involve consensual sex. Thus there is no reason to expect a correlation between adult pornography and sexual assaults.

Child pornography on the other hand inherently involves sexualization of children and sex with such children is always illegal. Re-enacting child pornography inherently involves sexual assault.

Such as anything.

I don't believe in the whole idea that, if someone is addicted to, say drugs, that you should give them drugs so they'll stay off the streets or whatever, that's not really fixing the problem, it's just moving the 'teat' they're sucking at behind closed doors, where people don't know about it.

It's working in Switzerland. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1727532.stm)

Make them quit cold turkey. Then when they finally get their hands on some drugs, they overdose and die. Problem solved? Not really.

Not saying you should feed them drugs, but there sure are better ways to deal with the problem than that.

Yet 'feeding them drugs' is exactly what some people seem to think is a solution, or, for example, decriminalizing various drugs or whatever.

My point is, giving these pedophiles access to child porn, isn't solving the problem, in the same way giving a drug addict drugs, isn't going to solve the drug addict's addiction to the drugs.

Granted, pedophilia isn't the same as being addicted to a substance, but the principle of appeasement as a solution to the problem is foolish.

Given the girls were under the AoC and the men above it, or so it seems from another poster, they're "lucky" they were caught with naked pictures, rather than actual coitus.

Although it would be the same case of the letter of the law ruling the spirit of it, I would think they would have tougher luck fighting charges of engaging in intercourse with underage minors, rather than holding naked photos of them.

In any case, I'm sure the SCOTUS appelate court in the region will look at it, considering the legal ambiguity, at least in the eyes of the SCOTUS, of pornography and naked pictures. And, assuming the appelate court overturns the charges, I would think it may end in the SCOTUS itself. This is still far from over.

I guess you missed out on this (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/simpsonsstyle-cartoon-is-child-porn/2008/12/08/1228584707575.html).

EDIT: Quoted wrong post

Well, your link includes this:


The magistrate said that, had the images involved real children, McEwan would have been jailed.

I had asked if it were true that artificial images of child porn not using real children may be treated differently.

So, that may be consistent with the premise that artificial images might be treated differently, at least in sentencing.

EDIT: Is this Australian Supreme Court ruling consistent with other Commonwealth countries? I don't know anything about how Australian law works.

I look at your links in a minute, but consider the basic difference:

Adult pornography doesn't involve depiction of anything inherently criminal and re-enacting adult pornography can involve consensual sex. Thus there is no reason to expect a correlation between adult pornography and sexual assaults.

Child pornography on the other hand inherently involves sexualization of children and sex with such children is always illegal. Re-enacting child pornography inherently involves sexual assault.

Yes, but they both essentially deal with sexuality in a remarkabley similar fashion apart from child pornography deals with an illegal subject, that can and very much does cause damage to young humans. The same ideas and methods of working should essentially transfer over.

Yet 'feeding them drugs' is exactly what some people seem to think is a solution, or, for example, decriminalizing various drugs or whatever.

My point is, giving these pedophiles access to child porn, isn't solving the problem, in the same way giving a drug addict drugs, isn't going to solve the drug addict's addiction to the drugs.

Granted, pedophilia isn't the same as being addicted to a substance, but the principle of appeasement as a solution to the problem is foolish.

They're very different things aside from the concept of appeasement, and the fact that they're both very controversial. Bringing another unrelated controversial subject in the discussion just muddies the water.

Well, the problem with photos shared via cell phones always leads to the risk of them getting in the wrong hands. I think that on that count the law is right - no 16-years-old should have their nude photos in the hands of a stranger. I mean, the photos were probably found out by someone's parent, and you never know whose daddy or mommy is a sexual pervert (home or outside of home). :tongue:

They're very different things aside from the concept of appeasement, and the fact that they're both very controversial. Bringing another unrelated controversial subject in the discussion just muddies the water.

They're not unrelated. Drug users can do great damage to people close to them, or even total strangers; emotional, psychological and physical damage.

The only way that would be 'safe' would be to gather all the drug users (or all the pedophiles, to continue with the analogy) into a closed facility with no outsiders in it, and then let them OD. Pedophiles could be given a couple of nude pictures of children generated by computer and let them fight to death over the pictures. :P

They're not unrelated. Drug users can do great damage to people close to them, or even total strangers; emotional, psychological and physical damage.

The only way that would be 'safe' would be to gather all the drug users (or all the pedophiles, to continue with the analogy) into a closed facility with no outsiders in it, and then let them OD. Pedophiles could be given a couple of nude pictures of children generated by computer and let them fight to death over the pictures. :P

You're obviously full of crap if you're imaging some sort of Battle Royale between drug users as a viable form of "treatment".

Adult pornography doesn't involve depiction of anything inherently criminal and re-enacting adult pornography can involve consensual sex.

Define 'inherently criminal'. In some cultures the whole idea of some total stranger looking at other people having sex is criminal and unacceptable. Also, I've yet to find a professionally made hetero porn video where anal penetration was not a part of the deal, and that's illegal both for men and women in many countries around the globe.

Child pornography on the other hand inherently involves sexualization of children and sex with such children is always illegal. Re-enacting child pornography inherently involves sexual assault.

While not rooting for child pornography or adults having sex with children, it's pretty much only frowned at in modern societies. Many, many cultures before have been of the opinion that it's okay for adults to introduce children to their sexuality, so that when puberty hits, it's not that traumatizing.

Also, the problem is that earlier on, pre-modern society, kids weren't hitting puberty nearly as early as they do now. A girl would basically get to 16 or so before getting their periods, and then she was considered the right age to marry. Now, thanks to healthy eating and genetics at work, girls as young as 11 can start menstruating. Boys as young as 9 have been recorded to have ejaculated viable sperm. So if they can reproduce, are they children or adults?

It's working in Switzerland.[/URL]
The scheme is only open to extreme addicts, with mental and physical health problems, and with a history of at least 10 years of hard drug abuse, and several serious previous attempts to come off heroin.

How is it exactly working? It's not stopping new people getting addicted. It's not helping with the damage the drug does in these people, even in 'moderate' doses. It's only helping public health care by turning down the cases of needle-transmitted diseases, it doesn't stop those people from getting behind the steering wheel and plowing their car into a crowd, because in the drug high it felt like a good idea.

You're obviously full of crap if you're imaging some sort of Battle Royale between drug users as a viable form of "treatment".

I'd just like to see kid-rapers dead, that's all. Indulge my fantasy; you're ready to indulge theirs. :D

They're very different things aside from the concept of appeasement, and the fact that they're both very controversial. Bringing another unrelated controversial subject in the discussion just muddies the water.

It's not really muddling the water.

Your drug 'program' is based around the idea is they legally allow addicts to shoot up, then there isn't a problem.

To put this another way, it's sort of like going into a burning house, and denying the house is on fire, and therefore you're not in any danger.

Pretending the problem isn't there isn't solving the problem.

-snip-
How is it exactly working? It's not stopping new people getting addicted. It's not helping with the damage the drug does in these people, even in 'moderate' doses. It's only helping public health care by turning down the cases of needle-transmitted diseases, it doesn't stop those people from getting behind the steering wheel and plowing their car into a crowd, because in the drug high it felt like a good idea.

The article specifically mentions that the heroin was popular during the eighties and nineties, but since this is the only view people have of heroin addicts, it's lost its attractiveness.

Heroin does no real damage to the body, which is why people are able to live with it for thirty years.

Stops HIV? That's very good.

Heroin doesn't have that effect at all, your ignorance just proves how little you know.

It's not really muddling the water.

Your drug 'program' is based around the idea is they legally allow addicts to shoot up, then there isn't a problem.

To put this another way, it's sort of like going into a burning house, and denying the house is on fire, and therefore you're not in any danger.

Pretending the problem isn't there isn't solving the problem.

People live with heroin for many years, and the article gives you a clear example of a man with children who leads a steady life and has a job. He just happens to shoot up every day.

I'd just like to see kid-rapers dead, that's all. Indulge my fantasy; you're ready to indulge theirs. :D

I'm worried by your relaxed approached to murder.

The girls were 14 and 15, the males 16 and 17. The age of consent in PA is 16.


I don't know if that has anything to do with it, but that might be what they're basing their case on. Which would be idiotic to say the least.

I don't get how these prosecutors sleep at night. How could they think of ruining these kid's lives into their 20s over this shit and it would be beneficial to society as a whole?

Jack Thompson and Mike Nifong aren't exactly anomalies. Nixon got his break on the Alger Hiss case after all.

Stops HIV? That's very good.

Clean needles don't stop HIV, they don't even always stop its spread. Just slow it down. People high on drugs are less likely to use protection during sex, for example. And people using drugs regularly have a trouble getting or keeping a job, so I could imagine them turning to prostitution to get money - if not for drugs (your example of government-allotted drug) then for other things like rent, items they want, food, and so on.

Heroin doesn't have that effect at all, your ignorance just proves how little you know.
Once in the brain, it then is deacetylated into 6-monoacetylmorphine (6-MAM) and morphine which bind to μ-opioid receptors, resulting in the drug's euphoric, analgesic (pain relief), and anxiolytic (anti-anxiety) effects.

That's from Wikipedia. Now I don't know how you know exactly what heroin feels like, but "euphoric and anti-anxiety" can cause trouble in people with mental problems - and yes, drug addiction is a mental problem. Without going into too many details, I can tell you that when you lack the sense of being in danger and have a 'high' of euphoria, you will take risks, which can lead to bad trouble, for yourself as well as others. And that is first person knowledge on my part.

I'm worried by your relaxed approached to murder.

And I'm worried about your relaxed approach to child pornography. We're even. ;)

One-O-One, I also found this:

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/04/16/scotus.virtual.child.porn/

which indicates that in some countries, artificial images are treated in some cases differently than porn with actual children.

So, in addition to the sentencing difference from the link you sent me about the Australian "Lisa Simpson" case, it seems in some other countries its yet further different.

People live with heroin for many years, and the article gives you a clear example of a man with children who leads a steady life and has a job. He just happens to shoot up every day.

People also live with HIV/AIDS for many years too, so clearly we should stop looking for a cure.

The articles so-called 'clear example' only goes to prove who wrong you are. The man, if it wasn't for the fact he was getting free drugs, would be broke, wouldn't have access to his child, and would likely be out on the streets committing various crimes to buy the drug with.

And yet, you say, well he's better now. But he's not better, he's still addicted to the drug, and should this program dry up, he'll probably be out on the streets selling his child to score more heroin. The fact is, he life was nether stable, nor did he have a job, before this program, a program that isn't really providing a solution to his problem, but rather masking it so it appears to be gone, in other words, it's not a solution, and it doesn't solve the problem (his addiction).

Clean needles don't stop HIV, they don't even always stop its spread. Just slow it down. People high on drugs are less likely to use protection during sex, for example. And people using drugs regularly have a trouble getting or keeping a job, so I could imagine them turning to prostitution to get money - if not for drugs (your example of government-allotted drug) then for other things like rent, items they want, food, and so on.




That's from Wikipedia. Now I don't know how you know exactly what heroin feels like, but "euphoric and anti-anxiety" can cause trouble in people with mental problems - and yes, drug addiction is a mental problem. Without going into too many details, I can tell you that when you lack the sense of being in danger and have a 'high' of euphoria, you will take risks, which can lead to bad trouble, for yourself as well as others. And that is first person knowledge on my part.

I can only imagine with these people, they're given it at a level that keeps their withdrawal from becoming an issue, rather than at recreational doses, though this is pure conjecture.

Just because you have a feeling of eurphoria, it doesn't make you reckless, otherwise this program wouldn't be going on because of the casulty on the Stockholm streets from drug users. You're building yourself a nice strawman to burn.

People live with heroin for many years, and the article gives you a clear example of a man with children who leads a steady life and has a job. He just happens to shoot up every day.

Wikipedia: Repeated use of heroin results in a number of physiological changes, including decreases in the number of μ-opioid receptors. These physiological alterations lead to tolerance and dependence, so that cessation of heroin use results in a set of extremely uncomfortable symptoms including pain, anxiety, muscle spasms, and insomnia called the opiate withdrawal syndrome. It has an onset 6 to 8 hours after the last dose of heroin. Morphine also binds to δ- and κ-opioid receptors.

I wonder if the Swiss authorities are willing to give the same person 3 doses a day?

Wikipedia: Usage and effects

[Data from The Lancet shows Heroin to be the most dependence causing and most harmful of 20 drugs.]

Central nervous system:

* Drowsiness
* Disorientation
* Delirium

Cardiovascular & Respiratory:

* Bradycardia
* Hypotension
* Hypoventilation
* Shallow breathing
* Respiratory depression

Eyes, Ears, nose, and mouth:

* Dry mouth (Xerostomia)
* Miosis, or pupil constriction ("pinpoint pupils")

Gastrointestinal:

* Nausea
* Vomiting (protracted)
* Constipation
* Dyspepsia

Urinary System:

* Urinary retention

Musculoskeletal:

* Analgesia
* Ataxia
* Muscle spasticity

Neurological:

* Analgesia
* Physical dependence

Psychological:

* Anxiolysis
* Confusion
* Euphoria
* Psychological dependence
* Somnolence

Skin:

* Itching
* Flushing/Rash

So how, exactly, does that count as NOT being harmful to the human body?

The URL to the Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin

And I'm worried about your relaxed approach to child pornography. We're even. ;)

There's a level of different between harming someone and completely removing them from the Earth.

I don't have a relaxed approach to child porn, I have an approach which just doesn't cause more harm on both sides of the dilemma.

One-O-One, I also found this:

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/04/16/scotus.virtual.child.porn/

which indicates that in some countries, artificial images are treated in some cases differently than porn with actual children.

So, in addition to the sentencing difference from the link you sent me about the Australian "Lisa Simpson" case, it seems in some other countries its yet further different.

To be honest, I'm not really interested in that at the moment, but thank you.

because of the casulty on the Stockholm streets from drug users.

A drug program in Switzerland somehow affects people in Sweden's capital? Interesting.

There's a level of different between harming someone and completely removing them from the Earth.

Many child rapists [here I count rape as something worse than fingering a little boy's or girl's genitals] are or become murderers. Now can I have them fight to death?

To be honest, I'm not really interested in that at the moment, but thank you.

When I had posted the question to nobody in particular, you replied with a link saying I had missed something, but your own link supported the premise of my question.

So, I found some more information supporting it yet further. But if you're not interested anymore, fair enough.

People also live with HIV/AIDS for many years too, so clearly we should stop looking for a cure.

The articles so-called 'clear example' only goes to prove who wrong you are. The man, if it wasn't for the fact he was getting free drugs, would be broke, wouldn't have access to his child, and would likely be out on the streets committing various crimes to buy the drug with.

And yet, you say, well he's better now. But he's not better, he's still addicted to the drug, and should this program dry up, he'll probably be out on the streets selling his child to score more heroin. The fact is, he life was nether stable, nor did he have a job, before this program, a program that isn't really providing a solution to his problem, but rather masking it so it appears to be gone, in other words, it's not a solution, and it doesn't solve the problem (his addiction).

The fuck? Selling his child? Your extreme reaction to this really shows how ignorant you are.

Heroins had a perrenial problem with treatment, because of the amazing addictiveness of the drug. Yes, this program has enabled him to achieve a regular life. It is a solution, it just happens to be one he'll be living with for the rest of his life. The only treatments for heroin are going cold turkey which has a predictabley low sucess rate, and that other drug which I forget the name of currently, but fulfils exactly the same function as heroin does in this program.

I wonder if the Swiss authorities are willing to give the same person 3 doses a day?



So how, exactly, does that count as NOT being harmful to the human body?

The URL to the Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin

Also:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Rational_scale_to_assess_the_harm_of_drugs_(mean_physical_harm_and_mean_dependence).svg
That image is based on data from the Lancet, a medical journal.

Note the location of 'harmless' heroin.

Also:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Rational_scale_to_assess_the_harm_of_drugs_(mean_physical_harm_and_mean_dependence).svg
That image is based on data from the Lancet, a medical journal.

Note the location of 'harmless' heroin.

...What really surprises me is the position of Alcohol and Tobacco...

A drug program in Switzerland somehow affects people in Sweden's capital? Interesting.

My mistake, I have a mindblock with the Sweden/Switzerland thing, but the point still stands, just transferred to Switzerland.

I wonder if the Swiss authorities are willing to give the same person 3 doses a day?



So how, exactly, does that count as NOT being harmful to the human body?

The URL to the Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin

My definition of lacking harm in this case is the ability to be able to live with it for thirty years. I'd like to see you do the same with meth.

The fuck? Selling his child? Your extreme reaction to this really shows how ignorant you are.

Heroins had a perrenial problem with treatment, because of the amazing addictiveness of the drug. Yes, this program has enabled him to achieve a regular life. It is a solution, it just happens to be one he'll be living with for the rest of his life. The only treatments for heroin are going cold turkey which has a predictabley low sucess rate, and that other drug which I forget the name of currently, but fulfils exactly the same function as heroin does in this program.

No, it's not a solution, just as the box of drugs you have to take to survive day to day with HIV/AIDS isn't a solution ether.

...What really surprises me is the position of Alcohol and Tobacco...

Really?

My definition of lacking harm in this case is the ability to be able to live with it for thirty years. I'd like to see you do the same with meth.

Interestingly, people can live without most of their internal organs functioning ether.

So in your 'definition' of harm, people who get into car crashes, and end up on life support, were never harmed.

OH! And you can rape a child, and that child could live 'with it' for thirty years as well!

Well clearly pedophiles do not harm what-so-ever.

Really?

Um...Yeah...Its higher than LSD and Ecstasy...surprises the hell outta me, lol...

The fuck? Selling his child? Your extreme reaction to this really shows how ignorant you are.
Just because you have a feeling of eurphoria, it doesn't make you reckless, otherwise this program wouldn't be going on because of the casulty on the Stockholm streets from drug users. You're building yourself a nice strawman to burn.
That was what I intended to know the whole time. I'm sorry, I can't really continue arguing now as I've been awake for 34 hours. Thanks for the mental stimulation (no pun intended).

I see you claiming us ignorant time after time without any proof from your side, and I just noticed your confession of being awake for that long... what are you high on? :confused:

My definition of lacking harm in this case is the ability to be able to live with it for thirty years.

Able to live or able to survive? And many meth users don't show up as such outwardly, that's why it's such a big problem. Shows how much you know. :p

What are its short-term effects?

The short-term effects of heroin abuse appear soon after a single dose and disappear in a few hours.After an injection of heroin, the user reports feeling a surge of euphoria ("rush") accompanied by a warm flushing of the skin, a dry mouth, and heavy extremities. Following this initial euphoria, the user goes "on the nod," an alternately wakeful and drowsy state. Mental functioning becomes clouded due to the depression of the central nervous system. Other effects included slowed and slurred speech, slow gait, constricted pupils, droopy eyelids, impaired night vision, vomiting, constipation.

I'd say "alternately wakeful and drowsy state" can cause trouble if said person is, say, driving a car. I've yet to see any opposite information.

Source: http://www.drugfree.org/Portal/drug_guide/Heroin

I see you claiming us ignorant time after time without any proof from your side, and I just noticed your confession of being awake for that long... what are you high on? :confused:



Able to live or able to survive? And many meth users don't show up as such outwardly, that's why it's such a big problem. Shows how much you know. :p

Just caffiene, thanks.

And, doesn't show up outwardly? Har har har! (http://www.drugfree.org/Portal/DrugIssue/MethResources/faces/index.html)

I'd say "alternately wakeful and drowsy state" can cause trouble if said person is, say, driving a car. I've yet to see any opposite information.

Source: http://www.drugfree.org/Portal/drug_guide/Heroin

Because I'm going to trust a site with the name drugfree as an unbiased source.

Anyway, reactions to drugs really depend on the person.

I'd say "alternately wakeful and drowsy state" can cause trouble if said person is, say, driving a car. I've yet to see any opposite information.

Source: http://www.drugfree.org/Portal/drug_guide/Heroin

You can't drive a car on heroin.

When people compare heroin favorably vs. other drugs, they're usually just stating the fact that pure heroin doesn't damage the body. Street heroin's contamanants do, and the addiction can destroy your life, but if, hypothetically, you had a limitless supply of uncut heroin of the same grade and origin, you could use it indefinitely.

Um...Yeah...Its higher than LSD and Ecstasy...surprises the hell outta me, lol...

When you actually learn about something instead of relying on the bullshit tidbits the media gives you, things are clarified. Alcohol is an extremely destructive drug in Western society. Tobacco is incredibly addictive, and full of carcinogens.

The only real risk I can think of with LSD is mental breakdown, but if this happens it's your own fault. There's only 1 documented death caused directly by LSD and the guy took millions of times the recommended dose.

Ecstasty is another drug demonised. It's just like anyother ampethamine. I'd like to try it sometime, given the chance. The only issue with this other than overheating is if it's cut, which is a byproduct of the lovely War on Drugs.

You can't drive a car on heroin.

When people compare heroin favorably vs. other drugs, they're usually just stating the fact that pure heroin doesn't damage the body. Street heroin's contamanants do, and the addiction can destroy your life, but if, hypothetically, you had a limitless supply of uncut heroin of the same grade and origin, you could use it indefinitely.

Indeed. I assume the stuff the medical services isn't cut with rat poison?:p

When you actually learn about something instead of relying on the bullshit tidbits the media gives you, things are clarified. Alcohol is an extremely destructive drug in Western society. Tobacco is incredibly addictive, and full of carcinogens.


*Smokes a Cigar and Grabs a Beer* lolwut?

but if, hypothetically, you had a limitless supply of uncut heroin of the same grade and origin, you could use it indefinitely.

Also if, hypothetically, you were the only person in the world so that others didn't have to be in contact with you.

When you actually learn about something instead of relying on the bullshit tidbits the media gives you, things are clarified.

I kind of agree with this. Sometimes, people will post a link from a news article and when you start gathering broader information that refutes it, including a careful reading of their own media link, they suddenly lose interest, even if its much closer to the main topic of the thread than what they're discussing instead. Its frustrating.

...Not that I havent contributed but....Isnt this getting a little OT?....you know the whole Threadjacking bit?

And, doesn't show up outwardly?[/URL]

Serious use, yes. Just as serious use of any drug does. But to quote Wikipedia again:

It is also used illegally for weight loss and to maintain alertness, focus, motivation, and mental clarity for extended periods of time, and for recreational purposes.

Not all of those people turn out to look like zombies. I saw a documentary of the meth use sweeping over the States, and there were people between ages of 16 and 67 being interviewed (in silhouettes, to protect their identity, unless they were drug-free now) about their use of the drug. I'm not saying it's harmless, I'm saying it is harmful, just like heroin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meth

Because I'm going to trust a site with the name drugfree as an unbiased source.

Wikipedia offers more detailed article, if you'd cared to check the link I gave.

I kind of agree with this. Sometimes, people will post a link from a news article and when you start gathering broader information that refutes it, including a careful reading of their own media link, they suddenly lose interest, even if its much closer to the main topic of the thread than what they're discussing instead. Its frustrating.

;) Heh

...Not that I havent contributed but....Isnt this getting a little OT?....you know the whole Threadjacking bit?

We were using an analogy between drug use and pedophilia as forms of addiction, and some people started questioning that. Threadjacking wasn't intentional. I still think child molesters should be shot, and that younger than 18-years-olds really shouldn't post digital nude pictures of themselves anywhere, including a cell phone message ring.

Also if, hypothetically, you were the only person in the world so that others didn't have to be in contact with you.

Heroin addicts can function. Respectable people use drugs without anyone noticing. That doesn't make it a good idea, but it's true. You probably know people who go home and have a snort or a joint or a hit and go to work on time the next day. It isn't smart, but you can do it. I've known professors and lawyers and engineers and salespeople, etc. who had massive drug and/or alcohol habits who reached prominent positions in industry and academia while using. Plenty of people crash and burn, but it's not a given.

Also, following my hypothetical, a heroin addict with a limitless supply would never bother anyone. No end to the supply means no need to resort to crime to support their habit. Depending on when you ran into him, the hypothetical addict would either be extremely friendly, a bit queasy, or wanting to be left alone. Never violent or deviant.

To return to the original subject... I found this article and read it. I suggest you do the same. And if it doesn't make you cringe at least once, I suggest you seek psychiatric help (at least for 'not being in touch with your feelings). :tongue:

http://www.prevent-abuse-now.com/misuse.htm

And before you label it as "oh, right, as if I'll believe something with that URL name", I suggest you read it.

Never violent or deviant.

Never? Wow, truly a hypothetical person. *tease*

Another useful link dealing with the original subject.

http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/features/explaining-pedophilia

This is scary:
Few laymen are aware that the American Psychiatric Association recently redefined the criteria for pedophilia. According to the latest diagnostic manual (DSM--IV), a person no longer has a psychological disorder simply because he molests children. To be diagnosed as disordered, now he must also feel anxious about the molestation, or be impaired in his work or social relationships. Thus the A.P.A. has left room for the "psychologically normal" pedophile.

Source: http://www.narth.com/docs/pedophNEW.html

EDIT: I notice One-O-One is no longer online... probably my cue to log off too and do something useful. :D

Never? Wow, truly a hypothetical person. *tease*

Violence of any kind would be extremely unlikely, even if I couldn't call it impossible.

I think you are moving the goalposts. I said that child pornography causes child molestation. I think I showed evidence to that effect.

Regardless, the point was the third main bullet in my post:

child pornography is often used by pedophiles and child sexual abusers to stimulate and whet their own sexual appetites, and as a model for sexual acting out with children; such use of child pornography can desensitize the viewer to the pathology of sexual abuse or exploitation of children, so that it can become acceptable to and even preferred by the viewer

I remember seeing a presentation at the BPS Forensic Psychology conference recently about this. To be honest the debate is still out on it. On the one hand, yes it definitely does desensitize and normalise it, and that should be avoided. On the other hand there is evidence that for some sex offenders it can be a 'safe outlet' and that they are unlikely to then go on to actually offend against children. But honestly, it's an area that needs a lot more research (which is currently ongoing) before we can say for sure.

Many child rapists [here I count rape as something worse than fingering a little boy's or girl's genitals] are or become murderers. Now can I have them fight to death?

Which is factually incorrect, please try again.

This is scary:


Source: http://www.narth.com/docs/pedophNEW.html

EDIT: I notice One-O-One is no longer online... probably my cue to log off too and do something useful. :D

This is because the DSM-IV does not consider sexual orientation in and of itself to be a mental disorder. This counts to any form of sexual orientation and this is based on how we define psychological abnormality. The fact is since a pedophilic sexual orientation does not, in and of itself, necessarily lead to harm or distress to the self or others means that we cannot classify it as a mental disorder. The role of the DSM is to diagnose not to legislate morality.

Yes thats right, we Pennsylvanian's got things totally right! We send teenagers to prison because some other teenager sent them a naked picture on a cell phone. Who cares if they never showed it to anyone else, didn't sell it on the internet for money, or do anything (other than wackoff, which they would have done anyway). Next we will begin to crack down on diaper commercials and naked baby pictures! Our Puritan ancestors will rejoice in the heavens as we bring the cleansing fires of the Law to all these immoral teenage scum!

The older I get the more I hate fundamentalism in all its forms.

We've been fooled by the rise of the nation state into thinking a central government can effectively legislate over wildly varying people. Images transmitted over the Internet cause a law that means a few schoolchildren are in trouble.

It's becoming quite clear that the complexity of modern life means governments no longer have the ability to understand much less govern a large, diverse society nor own the social influence and control they used to have, although we continue to live under the illusion that they do.

Who's really to blame here, over-anxious parents pressuring for over-protective laws, leaders pronouncing their vision of a good society, media concentration on shock value, marketing concentration on sexual imagery?

I can't see anything wrong with teenagers discovering sexuality, it's just a shame they're forced to do it in secret, I doubt they'd be as susceptible to the preys of pedophilia if they were a little more educated on the way the world is, not the fluffy-bunny world we try to present to them.

What 16? They are all f*cking pedophiles !

*TURNING BACK AND CONTINUE SLEEPING*

What 16? They are all f*cking pedophiles !

*TURNING BACK AND CONTINUE SLEEPING*

No they are not, they are fucking other 16 year olds and the pedophiles in government are jealous.

This is scary:


Source: http://www.narth.com/docs/pedophNEW.html

EDIT: I notice One-O-One is no longer online... probably my cue to log off too and do something useful. :D
:confused:
Why is it scary?

And I've told you this will happen.

When I was arguing that laws against CP should be reduced to the same extent as laws against other criminal activities, without panic witch-hunt policies, I used the argument that the existing laws can convict absolutely innocent people with no intent to engage in CP business, and even children themselves.
The replies were, "The prosecutors have common sense, it will never happen", or "If you don't engage in CP business, you won't be caught".

Well - here it is, not just potentially, but actually happening.

And I've told you this will happen.

When I was arguing that laws against CP should be reduced to the same extent as laws against other criminal activities, without panic witch-hunt policies, I used the argument that the existing laws can convict absolutely innocent people with no intent to engage in CP business, and even children themselves.
The replies were, "The prosecutors have common sense, it will never happen", or "If you don't engage in CP business, you won't be caught".


I agreed with you at the time :p. It's been happening for a while, teenage boys and girls (though often just the boys), both underage caught having sex together - onto the sex offender registry with them! The extreme level of some of these laws is both silly and counter-productive. The government needs to spend time and effort into effective counter-measures to stop genuine child sex abuse and stop trying to look "tough on pedeos" by introducing even more, often redundent, legislation.

And I've told you this will happen.

When I was arguing that laws against CP should be reduced to the same extent as laws against other criminal activities, without panic witch-hunt policies, I used the argument that the existing laws can convict absolutely innocent people with no intent to engage in CP business, and even children themselves.
The replies were, "The prosecutors have common sense, it will never happen", or "If you don't engage in CP business, you won't be caught".

Well - here it is, not just potentially, but actually happening.

Look, I know he's quite bald and all, but I don't think liking Captain Picard should be a criminal act! I hear that's it's pretty lucrative to engage in business with Captain Picard as matter of fact!

That's right. They go to Sierra High School, which like Sierra Leone, encourages child molestastion, apparently.

/thread.

What's interesting is how the images were found. Evidentally, they must've been betraying the students privacy via trolling the files on their cellphone, if cops had found the evidence the same way, it would've been inadmissable.

Wrong, supreme court case decided that if students broke school rules their stuff could be searched. TLO vs New Jersey.

The issue of child porn has certainly gotten out of hand, but it's just by-product of the whole criminalization of childhood sexuality.

Viewing child porn in many areas of the US now carries a mandatory minimum 10 year prison sentence. It's higher in some places and there has even been talk of a mandatory life sentence. For looking at a picture. No matter how repulsive that picture might be, it's still just a picture. We're not talking about the production or distribution of child porn, just viewing it.

Taking a human life can offer a far more lenient sentence. What does that say about the mindset of law makers? To me it says they are far more interested in re-election than justice.

And just what is child porn these days? Years ago it was pretty clearly defined as photographic images of children involved in a sexual act or a nude picture which is intended to draw focus to the genitals. Now it's just plain nudity. Parents are being arrested left and right for the traditional baby on a bear skin rug pics. Overzealous drug store photo processors are causing families to be ripped apart by investigations by reporting the most innocuous of family photos.

It doesn't stop there, either. In many places people are being prosecuted for owning, creating, or viewing drawings or paintings of nude children. Either engaging in sex acts or simple nudity. There was even an arrest in Ohio (I believe) recently, where a man was convicted of child porn charges because of fictional stories he'd written in his own private journal. Thought crimes, anyone? These are clearly cases in which no child was involved, so how can they claim that arresting people for these things are protecting children?

How? By using the clever argument that these sorts of images or writings lead people to act out sexually against children. In fact, there is no evidence of this at all. Further, there's not likely to be any real evidence of this or anything surrounding this issue because it's illegal to engage in any type of research into child porn.

Just ask Debbie Nathan, who recently wrote a article for Salon.com entitled, 'Why I Need To See Child Porn". http://groups.google.com/group/alt.censorship/browse_thread/thread/d6434a6588b63c43/af563c6d2efdd2c4?pli=1

So let's get back to the 16 year old girls who are being arrested for the production and distribution of child porn for 'sexting' nude pics of themselves to their friends. So far as I know, these pics are just nude pics of the girls, not the girls engaged in sex acts. As the pics were taken by themselves you have to throw out the whole 'children are sexually assaulted each time these images are viewed' argument that's so often bandied about by the so-called experts to incite hysteria, which funnily enough equals more funding for their particular organization.

So why the arrest? Because the flame of hysteria surrounding any issue involving childhood sexuality, from pedophiles to teen pregnancy, has risen to such a fever pitch that anyone or anything that touches on it is likely to be caught up in the conflagration.

This recently hit home for me in a personal way. My niece, who just turned 13, was recently caught having sex with her 15 year old boyfriend. My mom, who takes care of her, was completely freaked out by this and convinced that her life is ruined. However, that's not the bad part.

You see, my niece is a bit wild, I'll admit. She recently got into trouble at school for hitting a teacher. As a result, she and my mom have to meet on occasion with a probation officer. During one of these meetings it came out my niece had been having sex with this boy. Suddenly the police are involved, because it's illegal for minors to engage in sexual acts, even with each other. So, despite my mom's protests, the police arrested this boy, on Christmas Eve no less, and he's facing charges. Luckily, he'll probably get off with probation, but unfortunately he'll just as likely be forced to register as a sex offender. If my niece had been 12 (and she had just turned 13 3 days earlier) there would be no question; the boy would have done time.

I read stories like this all the time. Recently there was one about a 13 year old girl who went to Planned Parenthood because she was pregnant. Because she was a minor, the police became involved and she and her 12 year old boyfriend were both arrested and charged with felony sexual assault because they were both under the age of 14. They will likely be forced to register as sex offenders for life.

Suddenly the laws designed to protect children are harming them instead. Why? Because the laws have become nothing more than political tools. Politicians quickly realized what a hot button child sex crimes were and suddenly everyone was on the bandwagon. Need more votes? Pass another sex offender law. This is why we have registered sex offenders living under a bridge in Miami, and California paying millions to house them because they have been legislated right out of the community. There are placed in California that actually built 'parks' on highway medians in order to keep sex offenders out of certain communities.

Why? Because it makes the children safer? Of course not. In fact, all the evidence points to the contrary. Sex offenders without the ability to have a steady homelife, meaning an actual home and steady employment, are much more likely to reoffend. So why the laws? Because they generate votes.

The thing is, eventually you run out of things to criminalize, so they just start to increase the penalties for the things they've already criminalized. That's why viewing child porn gets you locked away for 10 years or more. That's why drawings and even text is considered child porn now. That's why children exploring their sexuality are becoming sex offenders, and that's why 16 year old girls taking harmless photos of themselves are becoming child porn industry kingpins.

You want to protect children? Start locking up politicians.

I'm no friend to pedophiles and the consumers of child pornography, but tbh, I think the criteria that governs child pornography should be that the person depicted hasn't yet gone through puberty yet.

That would not be a sensible standard at all. First off, puberty often "ends" sometime in what we consider legal adulthood, so I don't think you actually mean "gone through puberty." Secondly, the development of secondary sex characteristics - which I suspect is what you actually mean - varies widely between people. Your standard would make it okay to film an 8-year-old with developed breasts engaging in sex acts, but not a flat-chested 18-year-old. That's incomprehensible, and ignores the entire point of child pornography laws.

The issue of child porn has certainly gotten out of hand, but it's just by-product of the whole criminalization of childhood sexuality.

Viewing child porn in many areas of the US now carries a mandatory minimum 10 year prison sentence. It's higher in some places and there has even been talk of a mandatory life sentence. For looking at a picture. No matter how repulsive that picture might be, it's still just a picture. We're not talking about the production or distribution of child porn, just viewing it.

Taking a human life can offer a far more lenient sentence. What does that say about the mindset of law makers? To me it says they are far more interested in re-election than justice.

And just what is child porn these days? Years ago it was pretty clearly defined as photographic images of children involved in a sexual act or a nude picture which is intended to draw focus to the genitals. Now it's just plain nudity. Parents are being arrested left and right for the traditional baby on a bear skin rug pics. Overzealous drug store photo processors are causing families to be ripped apart by investigations by reporting the most innocuous of family photos.

It doesn't stop there, either. In many places people are being prosecuted for owning, creating, or viewing drawings or paintings of nude children. Either engaging in sex acts or simple nudity. There was even an arrest in Ohio (I believe) recently, where a man was convicted of child porn charges because of fictional stories he'd written in his own private journal. Thought crimes, anyone? These are clearly cases in which no child was involved, so how can they claim that arresting people for these things are protecting children?

How? By using the clever argument that these sorts of images or writings lead people to act out sexually against children. In fact, there is no evidence of this at all. Further, there's not likely to be any real evidence of this or anything surrounding this issue because it's illegal to engage in any type of research into child porn.

Just ask Debbie Nathan, who recently wrote a article for Salon.com entitled, 'Why I Need To See Child Porn". http://groups.google.com/group/alt.censorship/browse_thread/thread/d6434a6588b63c43/af563c6d2efdd2c4?pli=1

So let's get back to the 16 year old girls who are being arrested for the production and distribution of child porn for 'sexting' nude pics of themselves to their friends. So far as I know, these pics are just nude pics of the girls, not the girls engaged in sex acts. As the pics were taken by themselves you have to throw out the whole 'children are sexually assaulted each time these images are viewed' argument that's so often bandied about by the so-called experts to incite hysteria, which funnily enough equals more funding for their particular organization.

So why the arrest? Because the flame of hysteria surrounding any issue involving childhood sexuality, from pedophiles to teen pregnancy, has risen to such a fever pitch that anyone or anything that touches on it is likely to be caught up in the conflagration.

This recently hit home for me in a personal way. My niece, who just turned 13, was recently caught having sex with her 15 year old boyfriend. My mom, who takes care of her, was completely freaked out by this and convinced that her life is ruined. However, that's not the bad part.

You see, my niece is a bit wild, I'll admit. She recently got into trouble at school for hitting a teacher. As a result, she and my mom have to meet on occasion with a probation officer. During one of these meetings it came out my niece had been having sex with this boy. Suddenly the police are involved, because it's illegal for minors to engage in sexual acts, even with each other. So, despite my mom's protests, the police arrested this boy, on Christmas Eve no less, and he's facing charges. Luckily, he'll probably get off with probation, but unfortunately he'll just as likely be forced to register as a sex offender. If my niece had been 12 (and she had just turned 13 3 days earlier) there would be no question; the boy would have done time.

I read stories like this all the time. Recently there was one about a 13 year old girl who went to Planned Parenthood because she was pregnant. Because she was a minor, the police became involved and she and her 12 year old boyfriend were both arrested and charged with felony sexual assault because they were both under the age of 14. They will likely be forced to register as sex offenders for life.

Suddenly the laws designed to protect children are harming them instead. Why? Because the laws have become nothing more than political tools. Politicians quickly realized what a hot button child sex crimes were and suddenly everyone was on the bandwagon. Need more votes? Pass another sex offender law. This is why we have registered sex offenders living under a bridge in Miami, and California paying millions to house them because they have been legislated right out of the community. There are placed in California that actually built 'parks' on highway medians in order to keep sex offenders out of certain communities.

Why? Because it makes the children safer? Of course not. In fact, all the evidence points to the contrary. Sex offenders without the ability to have a steady homelife, meaning an actual home and steady employment, are much more likely to reoffend. So why the laws? Because they generate votes.

The thing is, eventually you run out of things to criminalize, so they just start to increase the penalties for the things they've already criminalized. That's why viewing child porn gets you locked away for 10 years or more. That's why drawings and even text is considered child porn now. That's why children exploring their sexuality are becoming sex offenders, and that's why 16 year old girls taking harmless photos of themselves are becoming child porn industry kingpins.

You want to protect children? Start locking up politicians.

Wow.

1. Way to defend kiddy porn. The first sentence sounds like something right out of NAMBLA's mission statement.
2. Source? You talk a lot about instances you've read about. Lets see those articles or similar ones.

Law's Broken. If Obama is the messiah we've been promisied he'll fix this moronic overeaction by yesterday.

Yes thats right, we Pennsylvanian's got things totally right! We send teenagers to prison because some other teenager sent them a naked picture on a cell phone. Who cares if they never showed it to anyone else, didn't sell it on the internet for money, or do anything (other than wackoff, which they would have done anyway). Next we will begin to crack down on diaper commercials and naked baby pictures! Our Puritan ancestors will rejoice in the heavens as we bring the cleansing fires of the Law to all these immoral teenage scum!

The older I get the more I hate fundamentalism in all its forms.

I thought Pennsylvania had Quaker ancestors ???
In which case I imagine they are turning over in their graves.

Um. There were convictions in the Traci Lords prosecutions. See link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._X-Citement_Video)

Wow I hadn't heard about that part of it. Thanks.

Although it should be noted that the conviction here was on someone who continued to sell the videos after knowing she was underage.

Um. There were convictions in the Traci Lords prosecutions. See link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._X-Citement_Video)

they only prosecuted one guy and only for distribution after it had become publicly know that Lords was underage.

but not really relevant she got the government to issue her an ID, not my fault if a 16 year old tricks the government to issue her an ID saying she is 18 and I take pictures with her in the knowledge she is 18.

16 years old is child porn? I thought that was the limit, since that is the sex limit.

Depends on where you are, dunnit?

Wow.

1. Way to defend kiddy porn. The first sentence sounds like something right out of NAMBLA's mission statement.
2. Source? You talk a lot about instances you've read about. Lets see those articles or similar ones.

Well, never having read NAMBLA's mission statement, and having no desire to do so, I'll have to take your word for, but hope that the rest of my post at least illustrates my point.

As for sources for some of the instances, I'm happy to provide them.

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_4783650

http://twiki.cageyconsumer.com/BrianDaltonCase

http://www.dailydemocrat.com/news/ci_11512134

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/04/05/bridge.sex.offenders/index.html

I'm sorry if this is a bit slapdash, but I was interrupted halfway thru this post and have to run. Hope I got them all. If not, please let me know which you'd like to hear more about or do a quick internet search to verify the authenticity of what I've said.

After posting I saw something I somehow missed before, and that's the accusation of defending kiddy porn. I don't in any way, shape or form. However, I do have serious issues about people being persecuted for things which I don't consider to be kiddy porn, and I have issue with a government who is so afraid of having one of their bugaboos which they use to distract people from real issues being revealed to be a paper mache (SP) monster that they won't allow research into it, research which could provide helpful answers.

Your Honour, I submit that this material cannot be considered child pornography. I draw Your Honour's attention to the pair of jugs clearly visible in Exhibit A.

Jugs, Your Honour. Hooters! Happy sacks, norks, titties sir. As seen on a Woman.

The Defence rests.

So, doesn't that mean if you're under 16 (or whatever age of consent laws are where you are) and you masturbate, you're both sexually assaulting yourself and victimising yourself?

...they are damn well charged with it, as they should be!



Hysteria, anyone?

Link. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28679588/)

I'm a 17 year old guy, and no 17 year old girl ever sends me pictures like that!

Goddamnit, some people have all the luck.

I'm a 17 year old guy, and no 17 year old girl ever sends me pictures like that!

Goddamnit, some people have all the luck.

Oh yeah, heaps of fun ... until her little sister borrows her phone and suddenly you're on a charge for possessing child porn.

I would have thought the laws governing statutory rape or similar crimes accounted for the relative age of all the participants. In other words, a 16-year-old having sex with a 15-year-old wasn't a crime, but a 26-year-old having sex with a 15-year-old was.

Ridiculous.

Oh yeah, heaps of fun ... until her little sister borrows her phone and suddenly you're on a charge for possessing child porn.

Chris Hansen:

What are you doing here?

Me: :eek:

http://www.slate.com/id/2152487
http://www.omninerd.com/articles/Watching_Porn_Reduces_Sex_Crimes - this links to the first articles and provides the source information (i.e. the actual results)

These links are both based on the same study. I doubt you've read the actual study as it doesn't quite say what you think.

First, the study finds:

Using state-level panel data on the rise of the internet, I find that internet access appears to be a substitute for rape. Specifically, the results suggest that a 10 percentage point increase in internet access is associated with a decline in reported rape victimization of around 7.3%. (p.2)

Note that the author hypothesizes that this reverse correlation is because porn access is made easier by the internet and this increased access to porn reduces rape, but this is merely speculation.

Second, these results are very limited:

These results show that the substitution effect of internet access on rape is statistically significant only for men in the 15-19 age group, and, moreover, that the magnitude of the coefficient is highest for this group as well. (p. 25, emphasis added)

Third, the author himself warns against drawing the type of conclusions you have drawn:

Given the limitations of the data, policy prescriptions based on these results must be made with extreme care. (p.28)

Fourth and most importantly, the entire theory behind the study is that "pornography is a complement for masturbation or consensual sex, which are themselves substitutes for rape, making pornography a net substitute for rape." As I explained earlier, child pornography is a complement to non-consensual sex -- so it's effects are entirely different.

I'll get back to you on your Japanese study, but I note that the fourth point also seems true there.

I would have thought the laws governing statutory rape or similar crimes accounted for the relative age of all the participants. In other words, a 16-year-old having sex with a 15-year-old wasn't a crime, but a 26-year-old having sex with a 15-year-old was.

Ridiculous.

1. This has nothing to do with the OP or this thread.

2. It depends on the jurisdiction, but most states in the U.S. do have an age deferential requirement in addition to the age of consent cut-off for statutory rape.

So, doesn't that mean if you're under 16 (or whatever age of consent laws are where you are) and you masturbate, you're both sexually assaulting yourself and victimising yourself?

Yeah, that's what this means. :rolleyes:

Regardless, your cavalier attitude towards the sexual exploitation of minors is noted.

Am I the only one who finds it a flagrant perversion of the spirit of the law when something designed to prevent the sexual exploitation of pre-pubescent children by pedophiliac adults is being turned on teenage girls who photographed themselves naked and sent the pictures to boys of similar age groups for titillation?

1. This has nothing to do with the OP or this thread.

2. It depends on the jurisdiction, but most states in the U.S. do have an age deferential requirement in addition to the age of consent cut-off for statutory rape.

Um. It wasn't expressed clearly, but if what Sarzonia was trying to say is that a similar rule should apply to "sexting" ... then I agree with them.

Prosecuting minors of similar age for "producing child pornography" for each other IS ridiculous.

Am I the only one who finds it a flagrant perversion of the spirit of the law when something designed to prevent the sexual exploitation of pre-pubescent children by pedophiliac adults is being turned on teenage girls who photographed themselves naked and sent the pictures to boys of similar age groups for titillation?

Of course not. It may even be the majority view so far.

A classic case of protecting the victim of a supposed crime by prosecuting them.

I do however think it's a very bad idea. The picture might go to the wrong number, the phone might fall into someone else's hands (eg as here, school staff and the police) ... and even the possibility of that makes "sexting" a degree of "distribution" at large.

Crikey, knock on the boy's door and flash 'em right in his face. Surely that doesn't take more nerve than knowing he's going to show your picture to all his friends?

Um. It wasn't expressed clearly, but if what Sarzonia was trying to say is that a similar rule should apply to "sexting" ... then I agree with them.

Thanks for catching my meaning. That IS what I intended to say.

I brought up the examples I did because I relate that to sexting. I think similar standards should apply. If a 15-year-old girl texts a nude photo of herself to a 16-year-old, that shouldn't be considered "child pornography." If she texts said photo to a 26-year-old, totally different story.

Thanks for catching my meaning. That IS what I intended to say.

Good oh. It didn't seem to make sense otherwise.

I brought up the examples I did because I relate that to sexting. I think similar standards should apply. If a 15-year-old girl texts a nude photo of herself to a 16-year-old, that shouldn't be considered "child pornography." If she texts said photo to a 26-year-old, totally different story.

Different in one way, not in the other.


It's different for the 26-y-o. He should delete the post because for him, it IS child pornography. He should probably reply with a polite "don't do that" message, possibly try to inform the girls parents that she's doing this possibly dangerous thing. I'm certain he should nip it in the bud with regards to himself, not so sure how far he should go in protecting the girl from the consequences of similar sexts to others.



It's not different for the 15-y-o. What she did does not become "producing child pornography" because of the intended audience. She did something she shouldn't do, but the likely victim of consequences of that action is herself so it shouldn't be treated as a crime. Rather, it's behaviour she almost certainly wouldn't engage in if she was properly aware of the risks, so those risks have to be illustrated to her somehow.


The onus is on the adult to stop the "relationship" developing any further. Just as in cases of actual sexual contact ... and it's extremely awkward since the adult is obliged to do something which the minor cannot help but take as rejection.

‘Sexting’ surprise: Teens face child porn charges
6 Pa. high school students busted after sharing nude photos via cell phones

In an unusual legal case arising from the increasingly popular practice known as “sexting,” six Pennsylvania high school students are facing child pornography charges after three teenage girls allegedly took nude or semi-nude photos of themselves and shared them with male classmates via their cell phones.

This is actually quite simple...

- Were the pictures pornographic? Presumably yes

- Were the models under the age limit? Definitely yes

- Were the pictures therefore child pornography? Yes.

- Is child pornography illegal? Yes.

- Thus, did they break the law? Yes.


This is by far the easiest way to handle the issue from, inarguably blunt, legal point of view.


It really even isn't that ridiculous if you consider the consequences of legalising the production of such material, from teen to teen and/or within relationship, could have.

For example, saving the pictures would turn you a criminal in possession of kiddy porn when you turn 18 or break up, so at best you're only delaying the inevitable (I mean, who would delete free amateur titty images? :tongue:)

Another is inadverent spreading of questionable material: Someone steals your phone, perhaps you borrow your cell phone to someone or you might even post the images on a "trusted site" and the next week you or your BF/GF is the next teen-model or star of teen sex video among pedophiles.

Third point could be straight out abuse: Someone pretending to be of the same age over the net can get hands on material, that would in principle be legal.

Fourth point might be underage sex industry: Teen models for teen audience by teens...guided by adults, naturally. :eek:


It's much easier to keep producing such material, underage pornography for underaged audience, illegal - Though preferably such a case should handled differently (IF applicable) so they wouldn't be labeled as sex-offenders fo' life.

This is actually quite simple...

- Were the pictures pornographic? Presumably yes

- Were the models under the age limit? Definitely yes

- Were the pictures therefore child pornography? Yes.

- Is child pornography illegal? Yes.

- Thus, did they break the law? Yes.


This is by far the easiest way to handle the issue from, inarguably blunt, legal point of view.


It really even isn't that ridiculous if you consider the consequences of legalising the production of such material, from teen to teen and/or within relationship, could have.

For example, saving the pictures would turn you a criminal in possession of kiddy porn when you turn 18 or break up, so at best you're only delaying the inevitable (I mean, who would delete free amateur titty images? :tongue:)

Another is inadverent spreading of questionable material: Someone steals your phone, perhaps you borrow your cell phone to someone or you might even post the images on a "trusted site" and the next week you or your BF/GF is the next teen-model or star of teen sex video among pedophiles.

Third point could be straight out abuse: Someone pretending to be of the same age over the net can get hands on material, that would in principle be legal.

Fourth point might be underage sex industry: Teen models for teen audience by teens...guided by adults, naturally. :eek:


It's much easier to keep producing such material, underage pornography for underaged audience, illegal - Though preferably such a case should handled differently (IF applicable) so they wouldn't be labeled as sex-offenders fo' life.

Yet treating a clear case of teenage exhibitionism amongst their peers with the same severity as actual sex crimes and thus potentially classifying the "offenders" in the exact came category as serial rapists and child molestors is what makes this oversimplified approach that encourages disproportionate punishment very, very bad. Even more so than the sentencing disparity between Possession of Cocaine and Possession of Crack.

Good oh. It didn't seem to make sense otherwise.



Different in one way, not in the other.


It's different for the 26-y-o. He should delete the post because for him, it IS child pornography. He should probably reply with a polite "don't do that" message, possibly try to inform the girls parents that she's doing this possibly dangerous thing. I'm certain he should nip it in the bud with regards to himself, not so sure how far he should go in protecting the girl from the consequences of similar sexts to others.



It's not different for the 15-y-o. What she did does not become "producing child pornography" because of the intended audience. She did something she shouldn't do, but the likely victim of consequences of that action is herself so it shouldn't be treated as a crime. Rather, it's behaviour she almost certainly wouldn't engage in if she was properly aware of the risks, so those risks have to be illustrated to her somehow.


The onus is on the adult to stop the "relationship" developing any further. Just as in cases of actual sexual contact ... and it's extremely awkward since the adult is obliged to do something which the minor cannot help but take as rejection.

I don't believe that's the issue at all. How do you legally determine intent or reaction? The issue has to be simply, is it child porn or not? If you have a picture of a 12 year old girl fellating someone, regardless of the age of the other person, then that is clearly child porn. It doesn't matter if I look at it, or an 80 year old woman in Pensacola, or the fellatee, again, regardless of age. If you say it's not a crime to one, then you can hardly say it's a crime to another. It's the same picture.

So the issue has to come down to a couple of points. One, was the picture pornographic in nature? While law enforcement seems to be treating all nude pictures of minors as KP these days, I don't think the laws yet support that. After all, you can go down to your local Blockbuster and rent any number of films which show kids in the buff. Pretty Baby and Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan right off the top of my head. There are also books available at most any bookstore which feature the work of people like Jock Sturges and Sally Mann.

So if the picture doesn't depict a sexual act I don't see how the law is going to be able to charge anyone with either possessing or distributing child porn.

Now let's assume for a moment that the picture is more graphic. Assume she was masturbating in the pictures. As she was 16, she may well be above the age of consent. It depends on where she lives. However, I'm not aware of whether or not the definition of 'child' in the case of kiddy porn changes from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. I would tend to think not, but I'm certainly no expert in the law. So we'll stick with 18 as the legal age. That makes a picture of a 16 year old girl masturbating child porn. Plain and simple.

You can't argue with the law and state that since it was for her own use, or was supposed to remain in her possession that it doesn't constitute child porn. Again, the pic is the pic. Intent changes nothing. The viewer changes nothing.

Of course, this is where it gets interesting. See, I assume we all want true justice to prevail and let these girls of the hook. The law can't do that tho. The law has set up child porn as this great evil. They've applied harsher and harsher penalties for it (again, all in a bid to win votes, if you read my previous post) and so they've legislated themselves into a corner.

Child porn destroys lives. It's the message we get every day. Just not this particular child porn, they'll say. This is special child porn. A kind where nobody gets hurt. Then you have to re-examine the whole thing. If a 50 year old guy in Montana gets caught with kp on his hard drive, he may well argue that the kid involved produced her own video and therefore it's not porn. Because, again, the pic is the pic. The movie is the movie. You can't say it's ok for one person to own and watch and not somebody else. They can't allow that to happen.

So we have 2 choices. Let the girls burn, or change the law.

I'm all for arresting pornographers. While I don't believe for a second that it's the multi-million dollar industry organizations like the Center for Missing and Exploited Children say it is in order to justify the government money they get, I certainly believe that it exists and that it can destroy lives. I also believe that kp is produced with the full consent of the kids involved and it hurts no one. Kids taking pics of themselves naked and sharing them with friends, or taking movies of themselves, is stupid. It's probably not a well thought out act and may well cause you some grief down the road. However, kids are kids and have always been kids and it's ridiculous to expect that to change. It's even more ridiculous to criminalize it.

Think back to my previous post, if you read it. My niece gets caught having sex with her boyfriend who is a couple years older. A few years ago you'd have had a few angry/worried parents get together and hash the situation out in some fashion. They'd be supervised when together or perhaps forbidden to see one another. In either case it's a parenting issue.

Today that's not the case. Today the boy is hauled away in handcuffs on Christmas Eve over the protests of the grandmother (and legal guardian) of the girl who is apparently being abused.

What's wrong with this picture? Hell, what's wrong with this society?

What's wrong with this picture? Hell, what's wrong with this society?

It's a symptom of an overreacting society that brought about Zero Tolerance Policies in schools and mandates Abstinence as the only sex education allowed. When mass murderers can receive much more lenient sentences than sex offenders of any degree, it shows how the Puritannical roots are still thriving in modern America.

Yet treating a clear case of teenage exhibitionism amongst their peers with the same severity as actual sex crimes and thus potentially classifying the "offenders" in the exact came category as serial rapists and child molestors is what makes this oversimplified approach that encourages disproportionate punishment very, very bad.
Like I ended my post - Though preferably such a case should handled differently (IF applicable*) so they wouldn't be labeled as sex-offenders fo' life. - I concur.


* Meaning that the images/videos contain only soft-core pin-up/nudity ("exhibitionism" as you labeled it), are targeted for specific peers not wider audience (ie. leaking should be penalized more harshly) and, most importantly, are made completely free-of-charge and without an element of coercion.

edit:
Furthermore I would differentiate the issue from art - for example cinema - where underage nudity serves a purpose beyond the sexual arousal of the viewer.

I thought Pennsylvania had Quaker ancestors ???
In which case I imagine they are turning over in their graves.

The Puritans were the ancestors of the Quakers.

The Puritans were the ancestors of the Quakers.

Uh... I am not sure how to explain to you how thoroughly wrong that is. Puritans never actually executed any Quakers, but did torture them, banish them, etc.

Uh... I am not sure how to explain to you how thoroughly wrong that is. Puritans never actually executed any Quakers, but did torture them, banish them, etc.

they were a break away in England puritanism. but more along the lines of a teenager becoming an adult and breaking away from a church he was never really a member of. their beliefs were way too different.
I would classify the difference between Quaker and puritan as greater then between protestant and catholic.

Uh... I am not sure how to explain to you how thoroughly wrong that is. Puritans never actually executed any Quakers, but did torture them, banish them, etc.


Quakers are pretty close to Puritans as far as I know cept that rock back and forth while praying. I'm not one who cares about the subtle differences in a religion because in the end its all a form of mind control, indoctrination, and a way to get power and money.

Quakers are pretty close to Puritans as far as I know cept that rock back and forth while praying. I'm not one who cares about the subtle differences in a religion because in the end its all a form of mind control, indoctrination, and a way to get power and money..

as close as night is to day.
Quakers also were so much about control only electing someone to be a clerk for the meeting, and having no other position or rank.

Hysteria, anyone?

Oh noes ! It is naked teenagers ! Run for the mons veneris!

I've often wondered about this sort of thing myself. Imagine a porn studio owned by children making porn for children. Could one really claim they are being coersed into it?

I've often wondered about this sort of thing myself. Imagine a porn studio owned by children making porn for children. Could one really claim they are being coersed into it?

Yeah, sorta kills a few arguments, doesn't it? Look at the Justin Berry kerfuffle (I've always wanted to use that word) a year or so ago. This is a kid who, at about 13, discovers that dropping trou in front of his webcam not only makes him lots of 'friends' but also has the potential for making him a great deal of money.

So a few years go by and he's raking it in. If I remember correctly, he's also getting some of his friends to join in the fun and profits. Then comes a reporter for the New York Times who is investigating internet child porn. Said reporter contacts several kids who are involved in a similar business and they basically tell him to fuck off, they are doing fine and don't need his attention. Justin Berry decides to talk and suddenly he's the victim who's been coerced into this sordid business by shady, unknown adults.

At least that's the way I heard it.

In any case, child porn created by kids has to present a bit of a puzzler to authorities. Where is the victim? Of course, the puzzlement won't last long. It never does. What would happen is that the authorities will carefully explain that the kids really are victims, they just didn't know it. Then they'll try to find out who it was who abused them previously and gave them the idea to make porn, because children are incapable of discovering sex on their own. This is a known fact. They'll find out that Dad bought them the video camera, and find the stash of Playboys he keeps under the bed in a box, IN FULL VIEW OF HIS IMPRESSIONABLE CHILDREN!! and bingo bango bongo, you've got your kiddy porn kingpin.

So don't worry. Kids making their own porn will never happen.

I've often wondered about this sort of thing myself. Imagine a porn studio owned by children making porn for children. Could one really claim they are being coersed into it?

Who is ensuring that only children are receiving the child pornography?
Who is ensuring that no one else actually owns the studio and is running through the children to avoid legality?
Who is ensuring that the children are not being coerced by an adult either secretly running the studio or secretly receiving the pornography?

Zero Tolerance Policy at its finest and most ridiculously extreme. seen worse.

it is. those teen girls should have to live with me in my halfway house too for the next 5 years. Now that is a cruel and unusual punishment!

The girls were 14 and 15, the males 16 and 17. The age of consent in PA is 16.


I don't know if that has anything to do with it, but that might be what they're basing their case on. Which would be idiotic to say the least.

I don't get how these prosecutors sleep at night. How could they think of ruining these kid's lives into their 20s over this shit and it would be beneficial to society as a whole? yes, because those kids were stupid. and they need to learn that stupid actions can have negative impacts.

1. Having tried to research more about this case on the interweb, it is not clear to me whether the teens have merely been arrested on these charges or whether the are actually being prosecuted. Regardless, the charges would be brought in juvenile court.

2. Although I don't support convicting these children for their behavior, let us not act like it isn't dangerous behavior that should be discouraged.

3. This is clearly a case where prosecutorial discretion should be used so that these children are not imprisoned, have serious convictions put on their record, or forced to register as sex offenders. No change in the law itself is necessary and I would oppose some ham-handed attempt to create a "child-produced porn isn't child porn" exception to existing law.

4. On the issue of how authorities found out about this. The OP story explains:

Police told the station that the photos were discovered in October, after school officials seized a cell phone from a male student who was using it in violation of school rules and found a nude photo of a classmate on it. Police were called in and their investigation led them to other phones containing more photos, it said.

Although more facts may be developed, it doesn't appear any illegal searches were conducted. ahh, TCT. the voice of reason.

If you've ever seen the movie Laputa, its weird when all the 20-30 year old men were crushing on a 12/13 year old girl.Oh, it's a lot more innocent than it sounds but it still has slightly weird vibes. I would show you the actual sequence to show how it was weird, but I can't be bothered breaking copyright laws just for you.
the situation was that the girl was alone and ended up with a band of scary looking air pirates. those pirates took a liking to her and attempted to make her feel 'at home' or at least 'not scared of them'. hence their goofy attempts to be 'nice'.

that and the fact that she was a better at cooking and cleaning. never piss off the person who knows where your weapons are stowed and feeds you. ;)

I'd think community service would suffice, if there has to be punishment.
Ugh, don't you just hate these legal gray areas?

Begging the pardon of all the people hashing back and forth, I think the core problem this illustrates is the inconsistency in laws relating to age.

Federal law dictates that an image of someone under 18, being sufficiently sexual, is child porn and therefore illegal. So far as I know, the federal statutes do not distinguish from children who appear adult and children who appear like children (which, IMO, is a distinction worth making and enforcing).

State law addresses the age of consent for sexual activity. In many states, 16 year olds are allowed to engage in sexual activity with adults, and in nearly all states that I'm aware of, are allowed to engage in sexual activity with each other. State law also differentiates, in many cases, between adolescents and children.

The result is cognitive dissonance. Sending a nude or near-nude photograph of oneself is without doubt safer than actually engaging in sex, has fewer intrinsic consequences, et cetera. However, it is legal for a narrower group.

IMO, photographs of sixteen year olds nude is not appropriately labeled as child pornography. Inappropriate photography, perhaps; maybe even worth a lesser penalty. However, the fact remains that I - at age 24 - could go down the street and have sex with a sixteen year old, and I couldn't be charged with statutory rape because of her age.

If I go across state lines and get consent from her parents, I could marry a 14 year old over in another state, bring her back home, and have sex with her all day without getting charged with statutory rape (if the 13, 14, or 15 year old is married, that's an exception to the NC statutory rape law). Provided I don't pay them for her - that's a violation of federal law under sex trafficking statutes - that's perfectly legal. And IMO, that's less appropriate than sixteen year olds' boobies on a cell phone.

However, in cases like the one in the OP, the 16 year old could face federal child porn charges if she texts a picture of her boobs - which image doesn't include any actual sexual activity, simply a body part that's customarily concealed - to another 16 year old. And I think that's an inconsistent legal treatment of adolescents. One of many inconsistent legal treatments, incidentally.

I think it's a fine and dandy thing that NC law with regard to sex differentiates between three categories:

12 and under, i.e., children.
13-15, i.e., jailbait adolescents who have probably started to feel sexual urges and may well have started to have sex with their peers, who are still illegal for old people to have sex with. Just with slightly weaker penalties attached in a different statute.
16 and older, at which point they're physically fully adult and old enough to start making life-altering (and in some cases spectacularly stupid) decisions and deal with the consequences.

Now, you may not agree with the specific age lines drawn by NC law, but it's rank absurdity to prosecute a photograph of a sixteen year old's boobies with the same penalties as a picture of a six year old with a dildo up the ass.

Now, you may not agree with the specific age lines drawn by NC law, but it's rank absurdity to prosecute a photograph of a sixteen year old's boobies with the same penalties as a picture of a six year old with a dildo up the ass. I could not possibly agree more.

Begging the pardon of all the people hashing back and forth, I think the core problem this illustrates is the inconsistency in laws relating to age.

Federal law dictates that an image of someone under 18, being sufficiently sexual, is child porn and therefore illegal. So far as I know, the federal statutes do not distinguish from children who appear adult and children who appear like children (which, IMO, is a distinction worth making and enforcing).

State law addresses the age of consent for sexual activity. In many states, 16 year olds are allowed to engage in sexual activity with adults, and in nearly all states that I'm aware of, are allowed to engage in sexual activity with each other. State law also differentiates, in many cases, between adolescents and children.

The result is cognitive dissonance. Sending a nude or near-nude photograph of oneself is without doubt safer than actually engaging in sex, has fewer intrinsic consequences, et cetera. However, it is legal for a narrower group.

IMO, photographs of sixteen year olds nude is not appropriately labeled as child pornography. Inappropriate photography, perhaps; maybe even worth a lesser penalty. However, the fact remains that I - at age 24 - could go down the street and have sex with a sixteen year old, and I couldn't be charged with statutory rape because of her age.

If I go across state lines and get consent from her parents, I could marry a 14 year old over in another state, bring her back home, and have sex with her all day without getting charged with statutory rape (if the 13, 14, or 15 year old is married, that's an exception to the NC statutory rape law). Provided I don't pay them for her - that's a violation of federal law under sex trafficking statutes - that's perfectly legal. And IMO, that's less appropriate than sixteen year olds' boobies on a cell phone.

However, in cases like the one in the OP, the 16 year old could face federal child porn charges if she texts a picture of her boobs - which image doesn't include any actual sexual activity, simply a body part that's customarily concealed - to another 16 year old. And I think that's an inconsistent legal treatment of adolescents. One of many inconsistent legal treatments, incidentally.

I think it's a fine and dandy thing that NC law with regard to sex differentiates between three categories:

12 and under, i.e., children.
13-15, i.e., jailbait adolescents who have probably started to feel sexual urges and may well have started to have sex with their peers, who are still illegal for old people to have sex with. Just with slightly weaker penalties attached in a different statute.
16 and older, at which point they're physically fully adult and old enough to start making life-altering (and in some cases spectacularly stupid) decisions and deal with the consequences.

Now, you may not agree with the specific age lines drawn by NC law, but it's rank absurdity to prosecute a photograph of a sixteen year old's boobies with the same penalties as a picture of a six year old with a dildo up the ass.

I could quibble with a couple of your statements or assumptions, but generally I agree with you. I hope I haven't given a different impression.

Now, you may not agree with the specific age lines drawn by NC law, but it's rank absurdity to prosecute a photograph of a sixteen year old's boobies with the same penalties as a picture of a six year old with a dildo up the ass.

Signer of the Declaration of Independence John Penn said that, almost verbatim in 1779, except he didn't say "photograph", he said "wood block etching".

The priniciple is essentially the same, though.

This is really stupid. This couldn't really be called child porn.

Chris Hansen:

What are you doing here?

Me: :eek:

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u275/Gravlen/NSG/chris_hansen_watching_you.gif

The result is cognitive dissonance. Sending a nude or near-nude photograph of oneself is without doubt safer than actually engaging in sex, has fewer intrinsic consequences, et cetera. However, it is legal for a narrower group.

The distinction comes, I think, from the fact that it is easier to coerce someone the younger they are. It would also, I think, be easier to coerce a girl to pose for pictures than to actually have sex.

Moreover, while it may be perfectly legal for an adult to have sex with someone who is sixteen, above the age of 19 it's weird and I question why anyone would want to anyways.

Why do we have child pornography laws?

As far as I can tell, the legal justification for them is that the children in them are being exploited - generally by the adults who use them to make the films.

Here's my problem with any type of prosecution in cases like this:
It requires a type of cognitive dissonance. We must somehow simultaneously believe that the underage participants are (a) mentally immature enough that we can say they are being exploited and (b) mentally mature enough to be responsible for their actions.

It's sort of like cases in which two underage teens have sex and they want to prosecute one of them for it. You can't simultaneously say that they are too young to decide to have sex and that they are old enough to understand and thus be responsible for their actions. Or, well, you can, but it would be stupid.

Why do we have child pornography laws?

As far as I can tell, the legal justification for them is that the children in them are being exploited - generally by the adults who use them to make the films.

Here's my problem with any type of prosecution in cases like this:
It requires a type of cognitive dissonance. We must somehow simultaneously believe that the underage participants are (a) mentally immature enough that we can say they are being exploited and (b) mentally mature enough to be responsible for their actions.

It's sort of like cases in which two underage teens have sex and they want to prosecute one of them for it. You can't simultaneously say that they are too young to decide to have sex and that they are old enough to understand and thus be responsible for their actions. Or, well, you can, but it would be stupid.

Not at all. Its a legal doctrine put forward by Supreme Court Justice Schroedinger, who felt that you could simultaneously be both able and unable to decide.

Just like this analogy both is and isn't consistent with Schroedinger's Cat. Well, it mostly isn't. Okay, it just isn't.

But only because you observed it.

Why do we have child pornography laws?

As far as I can tell, the legal justification for them is that the children in them are being exploited - generally by the adults who use them to make the films.

Here's my problem with any type of prosecution in cases like this:
It requires a type of cognitive dissonance. We must somehow simultaneously believe that the underage participants are (a) mentally immature enough that we can say they are being exploited and (b) mentally mature enough to be responsible for their actions.

It's sort of like cases in which two underage teens have sex and they want to prosecute one of them for it. You can't simultaneously say that they are too young to decide to have sex and that they are old enough to understand and thus be responsible for their actions. Or, well, you can, but it would be stupid.

If the only justification for child pornography laws is that children are hurt during the making of them, you might have a point. That isn't the case, however, so you don't.

Further, these teens will be prosecuted in juvenile court (if they are actually prosecuted at all). The whole point of juvenile court is to deal with individuals who commit crimes but aren't mentally mature enough to be held fully responsible for their actions.

So both parts of your alleged "cognitive dissonance" are untrue.

That is not to say I support any significant punishment for the children in this case, as I think I made clear.

Not so long ago, the local newspapers reported an incident where a 14 or 15 year old lad recorded himself fucking a 13 year old girl with his cell-phone video camera. The act itself wasn't illegal to the best of my knowledge, but that's the definition of child porn right there. It's a big deal because he (or one of his equally moronic friends) only has to put it online and that's where kiddie porn begins to spread.

If the only justification for child pornography laws is that children are hurt during the making of them, you might have a point. That isn't the case, however, so you don't.

What other justification is there for them?

Personally, I see this a lot like the case in which two minors have sex. No one is victimizing anyone else, so no one has committed a crime. They might have done something stupid, but that's for their parents to take care of, not the courts.

Further, these teens will be prosecuted in juvenile court (if they are actually prosecuted at all).

The whole point of juvenile court is to deal with individuals who commit crimes but aren't mentally mature enough to be held fully responsible for their actions.

I don't think anyone should be prosecuted for something they aren't mentally mature enough to be responsible for. Of course, you're mentally able to handle different responsibilities at different ages.

If a toddler wanders down a store aisle and just takes something off the shelves, we aren't going to prosecute him for it, because he has no concept of what he has done. If a 10-year old does the same thing, now we expect him to understand that stealing is wrong. We may not hold him to the same standards as an adult, but we do expect him to bear responsibility for his actions.

If juvenile courts really are supposedly prosecuting children for acts they cannot understand, then such courts should be abolished.

I do however think it's a very bad idea. The picture might go to the wrong number, the phone might fall into someone else's hands
So use the law to protect individuals from themselves? If so, what do you think of having taxes higher on foods with more saturated and trans fats? I've heard that one referred to as a "nanny-state" policy...

It's a symptom of an overreacting society that brought about Zero Tolerance Policies in schools and mandates Abstinence as the only sex education allowed. When mass murderers can receive much more lenient sentences than sex offenders of any degree, it shows how the Puritannical roots are still thriving in modern America.
I'm guessing that's more of a product of the witch-hunt mentality. It seems to me that one is more likely to be accused of being a pedophile for criticizing society's stance on pedophilia than to be accused of being a murderer for criticizing society's stance on murder. That's non-science for you; facts don't matter, and those with the chokehold on power get their way whether they're right or wrong.

I'm guessing that's more of a product of the witch-hunt mentality. It seems to me that one is more likely to be accused of being a pedophile for criticizing society's stance on pedophilia than to be accused of being a murderer for criticizing society's stance on murder. That's non-science for you; facts don't matter, and those with the chokehold on power get their way whether they're right or wrong.

Usually, passing laws like these are how they get their chokehold by appealing to voters dumbass irrational side.

Usually, passing laws like these are how they get their chokehold by appealing to voters dumbass irrational side.
My point was more so that part of why those voters are so easy manipulated is the influence of unscientific thinking, but yeah, agreed there.

What other justification is there for them?


Please see my earlier post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14422714&postcount=57) for other justifications for laws against child pornography.

Please see my earlier post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14422714&postcount=57) for other justifications for laws against child pornography.

Laws that make sense -
Selling, trading or buying child pornography illegal
Possession - slapped with an instant $1000 fine. Remember, just because you possess it, it doesn't mean you've done it.
People under the age of the ages of 14 through 16 cannot be charged with making child pornography, the above laws apply to them, though leniency in possession if it's people in the same age group, and it was a gift or "sexted" to them. Coercement should not be allowed at all.

Cartoon child pornography is a different realm altogether though, because no one is abused in the making of it, and if it reduces the chance of actual child abuse offenses, I'm all for it though it may not be sold commercially or a business made out of it.

I may've missed something out, if so, feel free to tell me.

I don't think anyone should be prosecuted for something they aren't mentally mature enough to be responsible for. Of course, you're mentally able to handle different responsibilities at different ages.

If a toddler wanders down a store aisle and just takes something off the shelves, we aren't going to prosecute him for it, because he has no concept of what he has done. If a 10-year old does the same thing, now we expect him to understand that stealing is wrong. We may not hold him to the same standards as an adult, but we do expect him to bear responsibility for his actions.

If juvenile courts really are supposedly prosecuting children for acts they cannot understand, then such courts should be abolished.

The bolded part is where your own argument goes wrong. The very fundamental idea of juvenile courts is that older children are not held to the same standards as adults are, but at the same time we recognize that they are capable of some understanding of our actions.

An year old shouldn't be punished at all, because, as you say, he has no conception of what he did is wrong.

A 30 year old should be punished fully, because that (presumably mentally competent) 30 year old is fully capable of understanding what he did was wrong.

But what about a 12 year old? Or a 14 year old? More mature than an 8 year old, surely, but still not an adult.

Your argument seems to be a duality, either you are capable of fully comprehending the implications of your actions, or you are not at all. Yet, you yourself admit, that at certain ages, at certain points, minors do have the capacity to understand the general consequences of their actions, but lack the full capacity of adults. As such, they should be penalized somewhat, but not "held to the same standards".

And that's exactly what juvenile court does.