|
Post by spaceflower on Oct 1, 2015 8:37:37 GMT
|
|
|
Post by ProdigalAlan on Oct 1, 2015 14:06:02 GMT
Both of these people made poor decisions.
We've all done that.
The courts have placed them on a programme to enable them to make better decisions in the future.
If they complete their programmes their records will be wiped clean.
So a couple of kids who did something stupid will have a chance to learn how to avoid acting stupidly as they enter adulthood and it will be no long term legal repercussions.
To me that sounds sensible and humane. They aren't being punished, they're being helped. That's about right to me.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Oct 1, 2015 15:18:03 GMT
Eh? In what way is it a bad decision? They are both of an age where they can consent to sex. They did not share the pictures with anyone else. What, precisely, have they done wrong?
|
|
|
Post by Miisa on Oct 1, 2015 15:50:01 GMT
I can see it as a way to pre-emptively block a possible loophole of people taking pictures that legally can be classified as child pornography (rather than, say, family snaps), wait a few years and then make money off spreading "legal child pornography" pictures of themselves. Permitting it could send an unfortunate message to others.
Though in this case that was probably not the intent, the guy just made an unfortunate choice and ended up in more trouble than it warrants. Just saying the courts have to be very careful.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Oct 1, 2015 15:51:59 GMT
but if sixteen is old enough to have sex, why are pics of naked sixteen years olds seen as child porn? If they really are then shouldn't the issue be that the age of consent is too low?
|
|
|
Post by Miisa on Oct 1, 2015 16:21:32 GMT
A 16-year-old having sex with an adult is still illegal. It is just legal for them to have sex with other minors at that point.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Oct 1, 2015 16:37:18 GMT
He had a photo of himself to show his girlfriend, with whom he had already had sex. There's no way that can be interpreted as sexually exploiting a minor. Not at that point in time, taking Miisa's comment into account. Had he pleaded not guilty, a wise judge might have thrown out the case, but I understand why he didn't. I have grave reservations of plea deals.
|
|
|
Post by Miisa on Oct 1, 2015 16:39:55 GMT
The problem about child pornography is that possessing it is a crime even without a victim. Which is why there is debate over even drawn child porn.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Oct 1, 2015 17:03:07 GMT
But is a picture of a sixteen year old child pornoraphy? Why? I have no desire to see naked sixteen year olds, obviously, but I don't see why the state would say that it's okay for them to GET naked with other people but not to take pictures of it (for the record as far as I know sixteen year olds here can have sex with anyone they like of any age, unless they've changed the law)
|
|
|
Post by Miisa on Oct 1, 2015 17:07:08 GMT
Really? What is all that "jailbait" stuff about then?
|
|
|
Post by guest moose on Oct 1, 2015 18:09:03 GMT
Jailbait refers to an under sixteen
|
|
|
Post by Miisa on Oct 1, 2015 18:47:20 GMT
I know the age of consent in some parts of the US is 18, so I don't know if that might affect the child porn laws?
I decided not to google Child pornography (ahem), but it seems according to Wikipedia the federal laws classify it as "an obscene visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or a visual depiction of an actual minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct" So it seems to apply to all minors, regardless of the local age of consent.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Oct 1, 2015 21:45:48 GMT
Then .. why not make the age of an adult tally with the age of consent? It would seem easier.
|
|
|
Post by ProdigalAlan on Oct 1, 2015 21:46:37 GMT
Eh? In what way is it a bad decision? They are both of an age where they can consent to sex. They did not share the pictures with anyone else. What, precisely, have they done wrong? You've never lost a phone or had one stolen? Would you really want someone who stole your phone to post it all around the world. Of course it's a bad decision
|
|
|
Post by spaceflower on Oct 2, 2015 16:26:31 GMT
The problem about child pornography is that possessing it is a crime even without a victim. Which is why there is debate over even drawn child porn. I don't consider pictures of naked people as pornography. I've seen a lot of naked people in classic paintings and as sculptures. It would be another thing if the pictures showed them having sex. And I certainly don't consider naked pictures of 16-year olds as "child pornography". People are totally hysterical about "child pornography". Alla emotions and no logic thinking. I don't consider manga with figures who look like children as "child pornography" either. If I had family pictures on my blog, and one with my baby naked, would I be considered showing "child porn"?
|
|
|
Post by spaceflower on Oct 2, 2015 16:30:33 GMT
A 16-year-old having sex with an adult is still illegal. It is just legal for them to have sex with other minors at that point. Maybe in the USA. In Sweden the legal age is 15 years. And the 15 years olds can have sex with anyone, whether it is another 15 year old, a 30 year old or a 45 year old and none is breaking the law. Though I would consider it highly improper if the grown-up was the 15 year old's teacher or coach.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Oct 2, 2015 17:24:57 GMT
I know I replied to Alan but my reply is not there
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Oct 2, 2015 17:28:06 GMT
Oh well. Essentially what I said is that many people keep naked pics of themselves or others on their phone. I've got some on my phone. If it gets lost or stolen then someone gets an eyeful. Bully for them.
|
|
|
Post by Miisa on Oct 2, 2015 18:06:57 GMT
I don't consider pictures of naked people as pornography. I've seen a lot of naked people in classic paintings and as sculptures. It would be another thing if the pictures showed them having sex. And I certainly don't consider naked pictures of 16-year olds as "child pornography". I don't consider nudes pornography either, but we have no idea what kind of picture this really was. And it doesn't matter what you consider a child or what you consider porn, the legal definition in the US is as above, sexually explicit pictures of someone under 18.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Oct 2, 2015 18:11:38 GMT
Yes but the legal definition is ludicrous if it does not tally with the age of consent... basically, they are saying that it's fine for a teenager to LOOK at another sixteen year old naked but if they take a picture they're a child pornographer. That defies all reason.
|
|
|
Post by spaceflower on Oct 2, 2015 18:21:36 GMT
I don't consider pictures of naked people as pornography. I've seen a lot of naked people in classic paintings and as sculptures. It would be another thing if the pictures showed them having sex. And I certainly don't consider naked pictures of 16-year olds as "child pornography". I don't consider nudes pornography either, but we have no idea what kind of picture this really was. And it doesn't matter what you consider a child or what you consider porn, the legal definition in the US is as above, sexually explicit pictures of someone under 18. And sometimes the law is an ass (or obsolete). Don't the courts have real crimes to deal with? The 19th century is over and the laws should be changed accordingly.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Oct 2, 2015 18:42:16 GMT
what spaceflower said.
|
|
|
Post by Miisa on Oct 2, 2015 18:47:40 GMT
I am not disagreeing, merely pointing out why the court did what it did. Not only is it bound by the letter of the law, it also has to be very careful about what it sets as a precedent in these phone camera days.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Oct 2, 2015 19:01:19 GMT
I can see your point I guess. I just wish that each case of this sort of thing could be examined individually, with a little common sense being shown
|
|
|
Post by Alvamiga on Oct 3, 2015 5:47:00 GMT
Something is made pornographic by the viewer, not by the object. If someone finds gloves pornographic (and some do), then should we make it illegal to have photos of those, too?
These kinds of decisions should be made on intent, not on actions, otherwise parents taking all kinds of pictures of their kids growing up have committed this offence the world over!
|
|
|
Post by guest moose on Oct 3, 2015 16:19:26 GMT
Well I dunno Col - I think that some pictures are obviously sexualised. But if the person is over the age of consent for sex then I don't consider that to be a problem.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2015 22:14:59 GMT
I actually do see a problem with 16 or 18 year old having naked pictures of themselves on their phone. Phones cannot just be lost orbstolen, but can be easily hacked as well. Kids that age often don't consider that. But I do think the punishment is extreme. It's stupid, but the learning effect could have been achieved in a less humiliating way.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Oct 4, 2015 22:56:09 GMT
There should not have been any punishment. And phones belonging to thirty, forty or eighty year olds can just as easily be lost or stolen!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2015 7:46:35 GMT
And phones belonging to thirty, forty or eighty year olds can just as easily be lost or stolen! Yes, but as people get older, they are often better at considering the consequences of their actions. Admittedly, not always. And I don't think there should have been punishment, but definitely somethin to show them it does have consequences.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Oct 5, 2015 16:39:27 GMT
I actually do see a problem with 16 or 18 year old having naked pictures of themselves on their phone. Phones cannot just be lost orbstolen, but can be easily hacked as well. Kids that age often don't consider that. But I do think the punishment is extreme. It's stupid, but the learning effect could have been achieved in a less humiliating way. This is an important point, and I agree with what you say. But if a phone is stolen or hacked, it is the person who steals or hacks the phone that commits a crime, not the owner. The owner is being punished for a crime (sexually exploiting a minor) that he or she did not commit.
|
|