snopes.com Post new topic  New Poll  Post a reply
search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hello snopes.com » Non-UL Chat » NFBSK Gone Wild! » Man claims outlawing child porn is censorship (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Man claims outlawing child porn is censorship
Troberg
Angels Wii Have Heard on High


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Troberg     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
I would say that there is not sufficient information in the article. As I see it, there are two very different scenarios:

1. He ran out of disk space and migrated some data to CD. Clearly a case of possession od child pornography.

2. He made heaps of CDs, in order to sell or otherwise spread them further. In that case, he is part of the production chain and the longer sentence is reasonable, although I would say that he shouldn't get the maximum sentence as that's probably reserved for those who are actually taping themselves in the act with kids.

--------------------
/Troberg

Posts: 4360 | From: Borlänge, Sweden | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Syllavus
Angels Wii Have Heard on High


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Syllavus     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Now what is the legal definition of "child porn?" Is this something that differs from country to country? I know that people (who I know personally) have had photo labs refuse to develop family photos of their children, even infants in the bath, for fear of child pornography laws. Is it truly the case that even a picture of a young child in an innocent situation like a bath could be considered pornographic? I know that someone who is aroused by children, could of course find an innocent nude photo of a child tittilating, but by the same token, someone could also find a picture of a woman in a nice dress and high heels tittilating, even though there is no overt sexual content.

I guess what I'm wondering is, say someone has taken photos of their children in the bath, running through the sprinker nude, etc. Could this person be arrested for created and possessing child pornography? Or does their have to be some deliberate sexual content in the photograph?

I can see where someone actively photographing children who are in sexual, provocative, or even sexually simulated situations should indeed be prosecuted for creating and distributing such an image, because in that situation, the child is deliberately exploited and harmed while the photo is being taken. But in the situation of a kid being photographed while running around nude on the lawn, the child is not directly harmed, but there is the potential for the image to get in the hands of someone who would find it arousing, in spite of the innocence of it's context.

I guess I'm just wondering where the line is drawn? Heck one of the most endearing things about childhood, in my opinion, is the natural comfort that children have with their own bodies, until they become old enough to learn shame, and to be self-consious. It just sort of saddens me to think that a nude child, has become so taboo because we're terrified of the people who would see that child and think lascivious things about him or her. In our fear of pedophiles and people who prey on children, it seems to be perverting that innocence. It seems impossible nowadays to see a picture of a nude child and not immediately worry about pedophiles. *sigh* It just makes me sad, and is one of the unfortunately very bad sides of the internet. Before the internet, it was probably much more difficult to obtain child pornography, now that it just seems to take a few clicks of a button to come across it, it's something we all have to worry about, especially with the prevalence of people sharing family photos via the internet. I'm all for keeping children safe, but it just saddens me that in order to keep our children safe, we have to be afraid of photographing them at certain times.

But now I'm just rambling and I'm sure I'm making no sense by now.

--------------------
"That would be really dangerous, you know. Indiscriminately extricating someone from the petrified corpse of a supernatural creature." - My Husband

Posts: 4308 | From: Massachusetts | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
pinqy
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for pinqy   E-mail pinqy   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
From what I recall, simple nude photographs of children are not porn. But if the poses are sexual, or the focus of the picture is on the naughty bits, then it's porn.

pinqy

--------------------
Don't Forget!
Winter Solstice Hanukkah Christmas Kwanzaa & Gurnenthar's Ascendance Are Coming!

Posts: 8671 | From: Washington, DC | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Oualawouzou
Angels Wii Have Heard on High


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Oualawouzou     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by pinqy:
From what I recall, simple nude photographs of children are not porn. But if the poses are sexual, or the focus of the picture is on the naughty bits, then it's porn.

pinqy

However, every now and then, stories of people (at best) getting their pictures destroyed by the labs or (at worst) being reported to police for producing child porn over perfectly innocent images. Unlike many other crimes, producing child porn doesn't need to earn you a conviction to cause loads of trouble in your life...

*shrug* Just saying. Not sure if it brings anything to the debate, but waddyawant.

--------------------
Le champignon arrive.

Posts: 4372 | From: Quebec | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Syllavus
Angels Wii Have Heard on High


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Syllavus     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Well for example, I know that Sally Mann, one of my favorite photographers received a lot of flack, and even had her photographs banned from some galleries, simply because some of her photographs depicted her children nude. This is a woman who grew up in the countryside, and in her own words "running around naked". She raised her own children in a similar environment, and in a lot of the photographs that she took of them, they happened to be nude, running around in the sunshine. In my opinion, there's nothing at all sexual about the photographs of her children, in fact, I think they're quite beautiful, yet people cried out that she was exploiting her children, and likened these photos to pornography. It's that sort of attitude that frightens me, because it is the inevitable backslash to this fight against child pornography.

For those who are unfamiliar with Mann's work, here is a gallery of photographs from the period when she photographed her children (they've since grown up and she no longer focuses on them in her photography). Not safe for work, as some of them DO depict children in the nude, but in my opinion, they certainly are not pornographic.

--------------------
"That would be really dangerous, you know. Indiscriminately extricating someone from the petrified corpse of a supernatural creature." - My Husband

Posts: 4308 | From: Massachusetts | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
rodh
Deck the Malls


Icon 1 posted      Profile for rodh     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Regarding the age of consent in Canada - it looks like the new government wants to change it to 16 years old instead of 14.

Link here

Posts: 403 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
RingKeeper
Markdown, the Herald Angels Sing


Icon 1 posted      Profile for RingKeeper     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
I for one completely agree with the raise in the age of consent. 14 years old is still just a kid.

There was a child porn/prostitution ring just busted here in St. John's. It used to be unheard of for those things to happen here. [Frown]

--------------------
There are just some things a dog can't explain to a monkey.

Posts: 2529 | From: Newfoundland | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
robbiev - singin' off key
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for robbiev - singin' off key   Author's Homepage   E-mail robbiev - singin' off key   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RingKeeper:
I for one completely agree with the raise in the age of consent. 14 years old is still just a kid.

There was a child porn/prostitution ring just busted here in St. John's. It used to be unheard of for those things to happen here. [Frown]

Agreed, but to me, 16 is still a kid too. For that matter, 18 is still a kid to someone who is almost 40.

--------------------
Every time I see a good looking woman, I think, "0oooh. There's another one I'll never have!"

Corvette. The louder you scream, the faster I'll go.

Posts: 1820 | From: Memphis, TN | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
EthanMitchell
Deck the Malls


Icon 1 posted      Profile for EthanMitchell   E-mail EthanMitchell   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
I want to jump back to what Troodon said: there is a difference between committing a crime and viewing a representation of a crime. The 'crime scene' example is bad, but there are many other possibilities. For example, lots of caught-on-camera style television programs show people committing illegal and/or sociopathic behavior (stealing a tank and driving it over cars comes to mind). It isn't illegal to own or view those films.

With child porn, we have a vestige of Dworkin's argument that the creation of pornography is rape, and thus the purchase of pornography makes you an accesory to rape. Of course we will all rush to point out that child pornography is rape. But that line of reasoning has weak edges. What about photorealistic animations? Montages? Child porn in which the actors have, as adults, given consent to have their image distributed?

These are exceptional cases, of course, but they highlight a question that is pretty basic in the porn/censorship debate. Does society want to regulate people's fantasies, or only people's interpersonal behavior?

Posts: 330 | From: New Haven, VT | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post new topic  New Poll  Post a reply Close topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Urban Legends Reference Pages

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2