1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Define Child Porn

Discussion in 'General Debates' started by Trey of Diamonds, Jan 14, 2009.

  1. DallasApple

    DallasApple Depends Upon My Mood..

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2007
    Messages:
    18,415
    Ratings:
    +1,491
    Oh..and Im sorry..the boys should be sent home as well with their cell phones with the girls on it.Let the parents deal with them as well.They may return to school with cell phones without nude girls on it.

    Love

    Dallas
     
  2. DallasApple

    DallasApple Depends Upon My Mood..

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2007
    Messages:
    18,415
    Ratings:
    +1,491
    IOW..Boys and girls..No exchanging of nude photos of one another or possessing them on school campus. :no::) thank you very much.

    Love

    Dallas
     
    #42 DallasApple, Jan 15, 2009
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2009
  3. Sunstone

    Sunstone De Diablo Del Fora
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    76,156
    Ratings:
    +37,810
    Religion:
    Non-Theistic Mysticism
    Simple child nudity is by no means the same thing as child pornography.
     
  4. Mister Emu

    Mister Emu Emu Extraordinaire
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Messages:
    11,809
    Ratings:
    +2,115
    Religion:
    Christian
    As much as I am unsure of this case, the law is the way it is for a reason...

    You can make no loopholes that let actual child pornography through, or actual child pornographers get away with it...

    Unfortunately, these people may have to go through the whole legal process, but I would hope a judge would not give them any time, or much worse saddle them with the title of "Sex Offender" for this... (unless some of the boys who got the photos co-erced them... then it would be)
     
  5. Dezzie

    Dezzie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2009
    Messages:
    1,679
    Ratings:
    +111

    Whhhaaatt? lol Really... wow... now that is interesting... it is a baby for goodness sakes and it's YOUR child... wow... I definitely do not find that to be kiddie porn at all, but then I guess if you think about it... there are a lot of sick people out there. lol
     
  6. Trey of Diamonds

    Trey of Diamonds Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    7,995
    Ratings:
    +664
    Really? Because that is the opposite of how the US law system was originally designed. People are innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Mister Emu

    Mister Emu Emu Extraordinaire
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Messages:
    11,809
    Ratings:
    +2,115
    Religion:
    Christian
    How does "no loopholes" contradict "innocent until proven guilty"?
     
  8. Falvlun

    Falvlun Earthbending Lemur
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    Messages:
    12,524
    Ratings:
    +2,315
    Ok, I agree, this whole thing is ridiculous. You should be able to take a picture of yourself, naked, and send it to whomever you want. Even if it was meant to be "pornographic".

    How are you guys defining simple child nudity vs child pornography anyway? Because, frankly, I don't quite buy the whole "it's just child nudity" argument... the girls were not making an artistic statement here. What do you think they were doing?

    Also, I think part of the problem in defining these girls as "children". These aren't innocent youngsters anymore. The age really should be lowered, or else, some middle stage needs to be formed, where there is still some protection, but not the full arsenal.
     
  9. Elessar

    Elessar Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2008
    Messages:
    1,219
    Ratings:
    +117
    Problem - anything remotely sexual, and its illegal for them to inform the parents thereof in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Back in the 70s, we had a major problem with central Pennsylvanians honor-killing their daughters when doctors, medical professionals, schools, etc. would tell the parents about things like this, or the fact that the daughters had acquired birth control or sexually transmitted diseases. Thus, would be illegal.
     
  10. Trey of Diamonds

    Trey of Diamonds Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    7,995
    Ratings:
    +664
    You said

    I take this as meaning you don't care if innocents suffer as long as no pornographers get away with it. How else would you take the statement you made.

    I prefer Blackstone's formulation.



    Or do you think that its ok for ten innocents live with the label sex offender so that no pornographers go free?
     
  11. anders

    anders Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2004
    Messages:
    1,748
    Ratings:
    +167
    The two weirdest things in this, in my view, are

    the invasion of privacy in looking into the girl's phone

    charging the boys. To the best of my knowledge, there are no filters that can keep your phone from receiving certain kinds of pictures. So how could the boys even have prevented the reception? Let's say they got a picture just before having their phone examined. No time for erasure, and some law enforcement person might be able to restore it anyhow even if deleted.

    So, if you're really mad at someone, borrow or steal a phone, send an incriminating picture to the person, and inform the authorities...
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. whereismynotecard

    whereismynotecard Treasure Hunter

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2008
    Messages:
    15,093
    Ratings:
    +2,042

    Man... That's stupid. They are charged with child pornography for having naked pictures of themselves?? It's high school... those kids are probably all having secks with each other anyway. The police need to stop perving about and meddling in the affairs of high school secks.
     
  13. Mister Emu

    Mister Emu Emu Extraordinaire
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Messages:
    11,809
    Ratings:
    +2,115
    Religion:
    Christian
    You could have asked me to elaborate as opposed to just assuming... In fact I even said, and I quote:
    "I hope a judge would not give them any time, or much worse saddle them with the title of "Sex Offender""...
     
  14. methylatedghosts

    methylatedghosts Can't brain. Has dumb.

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2006
    Messages:
    6,098
    Ratings:
    +737
    You want no loopholes?

    Add a little more common sense to the law system...
     
  15. Mister Emu

    Mister Emu Emu Extraordinaire
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Messages:
    11,809
    Ratings:
    +2,115
    Religion:
    Christian
    Absolutely... I want no loopholes for a child pornographer to jump through and walk away free...

    Well, I think that goes without saying ;)
     
  16. Stellify

    Stellify StarChild

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2007
    Messages:
    1,489
    Ratings:
    +115

    ..I don't know about other areas, but I know my area has online lists of people that have been convicted as sexual offenders. Many parents use these sites to help keep an eye out for potential predators, and indeed, have caught a few repeating their past offenses because they recognized them from the website.
    In this case, the obvious problem is that if these children are convicted, they will be included on that list. These websites provide the public with the offender's name, home address, work address, offense type (rape, sexual abuse, child pornography, etc), and a picture of their face so that they may be recognized. All this information is there, free of charge, for anyone who cares to look for it. And some past offenders definitely get harassed at home when neighbors find out about their conviction(s).
    Not to mention the laws that forbid certain types of sexual offenders from living within x miles of schools, etc.
    If these kids aren't cleared of the charges, it will have a major impact on the rest of their lives..and for what? A stupid teenage stunt. Jobs, schools...What about future spouses finding out? So many things can be affected..
    ..Not only that, but I find it surprising that the boys could actually be convicted of possession of child pornography, since they're minors themselves...I would have thought the same principles would have applied as the laws concerning sexual relations between minors (minors can have sex with other minors, but if a legal adult has sex with a child, THEN it's considered illegal). At least that's how it works as far as my knowledge goes :confused:
     
  17. Sunstone

    Sunstone De Diablo Del Fora
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    76,156
    Ratings:
    +37,810
    Religion:
    Non-Theistic Mysticism
    I think prosecuting the kids is no less than child cruelty.
     
  18. Mister Emu

    Mister Emu Emu Extraordinaire
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Messages:
    11,809
    Ratings:
    +2,115
    Religion:
    Christian
    I agree...

    The prosecutor should not have taken the case, and if they were dumb enough to do so, the judge should dismiss it immediately...
     
  19. PureX

    PureX Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    19,426
    Ratings:
    +9,527
    Religion:
    Philosophical Taoist/Christian
    I think there is a lot of confusion going on in this case.

    For one thing, I don't believe that fourteen year olds are "children". So nude photos of them are not going to be "child pornography" by definition. Secondly, nude photography is not automatically pornography. Nor is pornography automatically illegal. So nude photos of fourteen year olds does not automatically equate to being illegal pornography, regardless of who took the pictures.

    The solution to this confusion is simple, however. If an illegal act was committed in order to achieve the photograph, then the people who took the photo and participated in distributing it, etc. are guilty of a crime, and of covering up and abetting that crime. If the photo depicts no criminal behavior, and implies none for it to have occurred, then there is no legal reaction necessary.
     
  20. Trey of Diamonds

    Trey of Diamonds Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    7,995
    Ratings:
    +664
    loopholes are the label given to the parts of the system designed to keep innocents from being convicted, even if it means that some guilty parties go free.



    So if you are saying that you want no loopholes it is implied that you don't care if innocents are mistakenly sent to jail. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
     
Loading...