Stupid Child Porn Laws

[spoonitnow]

As an adult male, it's legal to fuck a 16 year old girl in most of the United States (and a lot of the rest of the world), and it's not legal to take pictures of you fucking her.

Fun question - Are there any other things that are legal to do but illegal to take pictures of you doing it?

There are 15-16 year old people who have been put on trial for distributing child pornography... for sending pictures of themselves.

Get a picture of your girlfriend's tits? That's a bigger charge than if you beat the shit out of your girlfriend.

How do you change the law to keep this from happening without opening up a situation where young teens are being exploited through legal loopholes?

[Galapogos]

Not an answer to your last question, but I think the hardest part would be the politician who brings this up and is painted by his opponents as the guy that, "wants to loosen up our laws against child pornography."

[surviva316]

The Difference between Consenting to Sex and Consenting to Massively Distributed Pornography

It's maybe difficult to argue that sharing a naked photo with someone should require any more rigorous consent than having sex with each other. However, a very clear line exists somewhere between this and mass distribution of child pornography. For one, s/he would be seen naked by majors, which is something s/he can't (as the law stands now) legally consent to under any circumstances. But for now, we'll put aside whether majors will see them naked or whether that should be illegal.

Still, though, it should be pretty clear how consenting to mass distribution of pornographic media should involve much more rigorous consent than consent to sexual activity with one person (or, hell, even to consenting to a teenager gangbang). It is such a weighty and blanket form of consent that it makes perfect sense for it to be deemed out of the capability of a minor. The weightiness of it (possible permanent effects on identity, potential to preclude from several future opportunities in life, etc.) makes it at least as stringent as, let's say, drinking alcohol.

Also, the ubiquity of the consent is what makes the consent requirements much more rigorous. Whereas in the sharing a naked photo with a sexual partner example, both parties are making direct and specific consent, here the subject cannot possibly make such a direct and specific consent to every person who sees him/her naked. His/her approval is so ubiquitous and abstract that it makes it absurd to compare it to consenting to a sexual act with a singular person (or even a hotel room full of acquaintances). It seems entirely logically compatible to believe that it's within a teenager's abilities to consent to having sex with a peer, while being outside of their abilities to sign off their naked body to be seen by anyone and everyone who has an internet connection.

The Practical Difference between Massively Distributed Pornography and Pornography for Personal Viewing

Now, it is possible to make it legal for a sexual partner to have a naked picture, but for it to be illegal for any larger distribution (regardless of consent). But the practical difference probably isn't that large, especially in this day-in-age with instantaneous distribution to the world. 15yo boyfriends probably aren't fit to handle the responsibility of being the custodian of a digital image, so the line between owning a photograph of their girlfriend naked and having other people end up seeing that image is only a difference of proportion--that is, they are effectively the same once you add a probabilistic weight. Since we're all poker players here, I'm sure we all follow.

This is similar to DUIs; while it's not impossible for any one driver to avoid vehicular manslaughter while drunk, allowing people en masse to drive drunk leads to some amount of vehicular manslaugthers. Similarly, allowing 15 yos to have nakey pics of their 15yo girlfriends "endangers" minors, even if there are case-by-case examples that don't contribute to that argument.

A Potential Difference between Consenting to Sex and Consenting to Pornography for Personal Viewing

Besides, I've come this far without mentioning another difference between sex and a photograph: permanence. I am not a developmental psychologist, so I'm not really fit to say what teens can or can't comprehendingly consent to, but it seems reasonable that they are short-sighted enough that they haven't quite gotten a grasp on a form of consent that they can't revoke. Even if the teen is giving direct consent to one peer, it may be difficult (may, in fact, be impossible) for them to comprehend that they are also consenting to the 40yo version of that peer pulling that picture out of a drawer and masturbating to it. Or maybe you'd propose that their be a Child Porn Consent Revocation forms that teens can send to their ex-boyfriends like some sort of cease-and-desist. The consent might also naturally reach a limitation once the pic-holder becomes a major, which makes the consent considerably less permanent (though still considerably less ephemeral than the sexual act). Anyway, not sure if that puts a nail in the coffin for either side of the debate, but it's another legitimate consideration.

As for children getting charged for taking pictures of themselves? I have a blanket political gripe here: you should never be charged for victimizing yourself. I think the second you do that, the law has left the ideal of giving everyone in society an agreeable crack at life and has entered the realm of moralization. (You are free to decline your opportunity at a good life if you so choose; compulsory freedom seems like an odd ideal).

Stupid Rhetorical Crap

It's maybe worth mentioning (note: it is not at all worth mentioning) that I'm not a prude or overly-biased toward the status quo when it comes to age-of-consent laws. The logic gets a little hairier, for example, when we talk about how consenting to sex with a peer differs from consenting to sex with people much older than you, but none of that's relevant here.

... Now that I mentioned *that*, it's definitely worth mentioning that I have no personal interest in having sex with minors.

[wufwugy]

How do you change the law to keep this from happening without opening up a situation where young teens are being exploited through legal loopholes?

By not letting the monopoly on violence collect taxes

Nobody thinks it would be right for government to nationalize McDonalds then collect mandatory revenues to McDonalds and distribute product on assessed needs, so why do people think it's right to have a government to do the exact same thing in other areas? We won't fix stupid laws like this unless we can make it illegal for the government to no longer nationalize law and support that law through mandatory revenue streams

Looking for solutions to problems created by government without nullifying government is like looking for a solution to a pathogen that doesn't nullify the pathogen


There, I guess I got out my weekly sound-like-a-lunatic-even-though-it's-totally-accurate rant

[Renton]

I do not believe that it is justifiable to punish someone for looking at child porn, or even purchasing it. I think there are fine lines where the purchase of it can so overtly influence the market for child trafficking, that it's tempting to prosecute it, i.e. a guy who finances and entire child porn studio for his personal pleasure. But it seems to me like you should simply go after the people who are actually directly aggressing against the children themselves (people who shoot the movies, people who profit from the movies). There's a pretty thick line between these people and everyone else so you avoid all the potential slippery slopes. Anything that isn't the wholesale abuse and infringement of child liberty is ridiculous to punish and can lead to ruining people's lives who are really causing no harm to anyone else.

[surviva316]

...

There's a good New Yorker on the Minority Report-esque mentality the American legal system has toward perverts.

Oh good, it's available publicly:

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/20...e-of-sex-abuse

I thought my description of the article might be a spoiler, but it's essentially the tagline anyway.

[surviva316]

The above is just an interesting aside, though.

I think it makes perfect logical sense that viewing child pornography is a crime. Someone peeping into a kid's window while s/he changes would certainly be considered a violation of that person's privacy. Using the legal system's logic that a minor can't possibly consent to a million anonymous people ogling at their naked image (which I personally think is fair), then looking at child pornography is no different. I mean, it's less scary because it's removed from the person's home and not in-person the violation itself of seeing a kid naked without the kid's permission is just the same.

Now there is probably a sort of reverse Genovese Syndrome that goes on here, where people might think that so long as they share the responsibility of violating a child (that if they personally didn't jerk off to a picture, then 999,999 other people would have anyway). There probably is a diminishing returns of sorts on someone's violation, and the one millionth violator I'm sure doesn't mean near as much as the first one. But the fact still remains that one million people ogling a kid's nakey pic is worse than if only a hundred had seen it, and isn't near so bad as if the pic potato-girl-level viral. So you're still contributing to the violation by viewing child porn.

Now, it's a different discussion to talk about what the most practical use of law enforcement resources to stave off the root problem is (and not one I'm as interested in), but I certainly think it's "justifiable" to punish someone for looking at child porn.