• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is this person distributing child pornography?

Are they?

  • Yes they are, and should be prosecuted.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    24
No, it should not be legal. We should in no way condone it. To me it would be more along the lines of suicide being illegal. We don't actually charge someone with attempted suicide and put them on trial. We use it to allow us to get them help.

That IMO is the type of crime this should be.

A person who attempts suicide (usually) has serious mental problems that need to be addressed by a psychologist to prevent them from harming themselves. A dumb teenager who takes nude pictures of themselves is just being a dumb teenager. What kind of "help" do you think the government can offer them to change that reality?
 
Last edited:
Who cares? Those laws are in place to protect children from exploitation by adults, not to prevent pedophiles from getting off.

I honestly don't understand your argument. In fact, I think you're twisting the facts.

How is a minor not being exploited if a pedophile takes their nude photos from a legal website and trades them? Child pornography is illegal, not because it gets pedophiles off. It's illegal because it is exploiting children.
 
A person who attempts suicide (usually) has serious mental problems that need to be addressed by a psychologist to prevent them from harming themselves. A dumb teenager who takes nude pictures of themselves is just being a dumb teenager. What kind of "help" do you think the government can offer them to change that reality?

The scenario isn't simply a child taking nude photos of themselves... This scenario is about a child taking nude photos of themselves, and uploading on the internet. A child doing something like that is probably too young to understand the possible outcomes of doing so.
 
How is a minor not being exploited if a pedophile takes their nude photos from a legal website and trades them?

Because the exploitation typically occurs during the PRODUCTION of said material, not the distribution. And no one other than the "victim" played any role in the production whatsoever.

Child pornography is illegal, not because it gets pedophiles off. It's illegal because it is exploiting children.

If that is the case, who are you suggesting is the exploiter here? The minor themselves, or people who find it online and redistribute it? If it's the minor themselves, then this whole argument makes no sense. If it's other people, are you suggesting that people should be arrested for viewing pictures on a legal website that turn out to be of a 16-year-old instead of an 18-year-old?
 
Last edited:
The scenario isn't simply a child taking nude photos of themselves... This scenario is about a child taking nude photos of themselves, and uploading on the internet. A child doing something like that is probably too young to understand the possible outcomes of doing so.

Umm just how old are you talking? I bet this situation is far more common among high schoolers, than it is among little kids. "Too young to understand the possible outcomes"? Most teenagers probably understand the internet better than the representatives who write these broad laws and the DAs who overzealously enforce them.
 
Last edited:
Incredibly poor judgment, yes. CP, no.
 
Because the exploitation typically occurs during the PRODUCTION of said material, not the distribution. And no one other than the "victim" played any role in the production whatsoever.



If that is the case, who are you suggesting is the exploiter here? The minor themselves, or people who find it online and redistribute it? If it's the minor themselves, then this whole argument makes no sense. If it's other people, are you suggesting that people should be arrested for viewing pictures on a legal website that turn out to be of a 16-year-old instead of an 18-year-old?

You don't seem to understand that child pornography isn't simply photos of children being sexual abused and raped. A 15 year old posing for Playboy is not legal, that is considered child porn. In fact, this as happened before... Traci Lords was an underage porn actress and she was also a Playboy centerfold when she was minor. Traci lied about her age, but the fact is, owning that edition of Playboy is illegal because she is a minor.

You claim to know these laws so well, then you should be able to figure it all out. This isn't rocket science. A 15 year old can't pose in playboy for a reason. There are no websites that operate openly and legally by simply showing underage girls naked, and not engaged in sex.

Who is the exploiter... the person exploiting the photos, duh. The fact is a minor posting photos of themselves naked run the risk of those photos being taken by pedophiles and those photos being exploited and traded by sexual predators. It simply wouldn't be wise of a young minor to take photos of themselves and upload them online. If you really think that that should be legal and fine, then you would end up with a society where young girls would be openly and publicly drooled over by pedophiles. That is just unacceptable. Children don't think things through like that... children don't think pedophiles might trade photos of them of they upload a photo. That kind of **** can haunt somebody, and it all comes down to them being a young, naive child and simply not knowing the risks.

I actually have watched some of The Kardashians... :3oops: and well, Kim has had similar problems with photos she took as a minor and them being traded online. That haunts her. She is also famous, so those photos are high value in the pedophile circles. One episode on the show even had somebody anonymously emailing about those photos.
 
Last edited:
Well, they're distributing child porn just by the definition of the words. They are (legally) children, and they are producing pornography. That's just kind of the way grammar works. With that said, I agree with everyone who said that there's no such thing as a victimless crime. They're choosing to do it of their own free will. It doesn't matter if it's a bad decision or not, it's no business of the state. It is, however, the business of the parents.
 
Umm just how old are you talking? I bet this situation is far more common among high schoolers, than it is among little kids. "Too young to understand the possible outcomes"? Most teenagers probably understand the internet better than the representatives who write these broad laws and the DAs who overzealously enforce them.

If a high school teen uploaded nude photos of themselves online, then they probably don't know the risks of those photos or aren't even knowledgeable about these laws we are discussing. A lot of kids understand the internet very well, but they don't always exercise superior judgement when utilizing the internet.
 
You don't seem to understand that child pornography isn't simply photos of children being sexual abused and raped. A 15 year old posing for Playboy is not legal, that is considered child porn. In fact, this as happened before... Traci Lords was an underage porn actress and she was also a Playboy centerfold when she was minor. Traci lied about her age, but the fact is, owning that edition of Playboy is illegal because she is a minor.

Wait hold on there for a second. What a photographer like David Hamilton does is perfectly legal. You can google him if you want to. The sex films that Traci Lords did were illegal not the photos.

*for the record I can not stand David Hamilton's work. It is neo romantic crap with little to no intellectual depth and on the level of a Harlequin Romance novel. And I can cite other examples where images of nude children have been made such as Sally Mann or Jock Sturges.
 
You don't seem to understand that child pornography isn't simply photos of children being sexual abused and raped. A 15 year old posing for Playboy is not legal, that is considered child porn. In fact, this as happened before... Traci Lords was an underage porn actress and she was also a Playboy centerfold when she was minor. Traci lied about her age, but the fact is, owning that edition of Playboy is illegal because she is a minor.

If anyone has been arrested for owning this Playboy, it's a perfect example of people losing all common sense over this issue. Do you really think people should be arrested if they are in possession of this magazine?

Who is the exploiter... the person exploiting the photos, duh. The fact is a minor posting photos of themselves naked run the risk of those photos being taken by pedophiles and those photos being exploited and traded by sexual predators.

Meh, whatever. Again, who is harmed by that? I don't buy the line of thinking that someone is inherently victimized by other people privately fantasizing about them...whether they're a minor or adult.

It simply wouldn't be wise of a young minor to take photos of themselves and upload them online.

This is true. But saying it isn't wise is FAR from the same as saying they should be arrested for it.

If you really think that that should be legal and fine, then you would end up with a society where young girls would be openly and publicly drooled over by pedophiles. That is just unacceptable.

I think society has far bigger things to worry about. Frankly the moral panic in this country surrounding the sexualization of minors is a bit silly IMO. So yes, punish the people who actually molest children, but I could care less about somebody getting their rocks off to a picture some teenager uploaded to the web. And the idea of punishing the "victim" themselves is ludicrous.

Children don't think things through like that... children don't think pedophiles might trade photos of them of they upload a photo. That kind of **** can haunt somebody, and it all comes down to them being a young, naive child and simply not knowing the risks.

I would suggest that being convicted of child pornography because they took a photo of themselves, is going to haunt them a lot more than the photo itself would.

I actually have watched some of The Kardashians... :3oops: and well, Kim has had similar problems with photos she took as a minor and them being traded online. That haunts her. She is also famous, so those photos are high value in the pedophile circles. One episode on the show even had somebody anonymously emailing about those photos.

And what do you suggest be done about that? Dumb teenagers will be dumb teenagers. :shrug:
 
Last edited:
The scenario isn't simply a child taking nude photos of themselves... This scenario is about a child taking nude photos of themselves, and uploading on the internet. A child doing something like that is probably too young to understand the possible outcomes of doing so.

So, because they don't understand the outcomes of uploading nudie pictures of themselves, what we should do is arrest them, charge them with producing child pornography and place them on the sex offenders list for life. That'll sure learn 'em, good.
 
Wait hold on there for a second. What a photographer like David Hamilton does is perfectly legal. You can google him if you want to. The sex films that Traci Lords did were illegal not the photos.

*for the record I can not stand David Hamilton's work. It is neo romantic crap with little to no intellectual depth and on the level of a Harlequin Romance novel. And I can cite other examples where images of nude children have been made such as Sally Mann or Jock Sturges.

I don't know who David Hamilton is... I looked him up and he is British. As for Traci Lords, I have seen this statement many times and in several different sources. I knew this before even looking it up.

Was the centerfold model for the same issue of Penthouse Magazine that "exposed" Miss America 1984, Vanessa Williams. Because she was underage, it is illegal to own or trade that issue unless the pictorial of Ms. Lords is removed.

The only thing I had wrong was it was Penthouse, not Playboy...

Traci Lords - Biography
 
Wait hold on there for a second. What a photographer like David Hamilton does is perfectly legal. You can google him if you want to. The sex films that Traci Lords did were illegal not the photos.

*for the record I can not stand David Hamilton's work. It is neo romantic crap with little to no intellectual depth and on the level of a Harlequin Romance novel. And I can cite other examples where images of nude children have been made such as Sally Mann or Jock Sturges.

Louis Malle's Pretty Baby starring Brooke Shields. Full frontal nudity of, what , a 10 year old girl, shown in US theaters. No sex though.
 
They should not be prosecuted because a couple of goofy kids lives would be destroyed over them playing silly games.

What they need is to have the fear of possible consequences drilled in if they ever do it again.

Kids almost all do things without thinking and should not have to register as a sex offender.

I don't know of any guy in high school who didn't spend almost every waking minute thinking about having sex, except me of course.

And by the time they are seniors a lot of kids turn 18 and in California that makes them adults.

I know many young people are on this site and never had the opportunity to steam up the windows of a car at the drive-in but trust me it happened all the time, and a large number of them could have been in big trouble.

This bring back some great memories. Can you imagine they were parked that close steaming up the windows to insure privacy?
SoCalDims5.jpg
 
If a high school teen uploaded nude photos of themselves online, then they probably don't know the risks of those photos

What risk? That other people online might view it? I think anyone with a passing understanding of the internet can figure that out.

or aren't even knowledgeable about these laws we are discussing.

All the more reason not to arrest them and treat them like some kind of crazed pervert, for an act that didn't harm anyone except (possibly) themselves.

A lot of kids understand the internet very well, but they don't always exercise superior judgement when utilizing the internet.

Sounds like a good reason for their parents to talk to them about the dangers of doing this sort of thing. Sounds like a horrid reason to criminally prosecute them after the fact.
 
Last edited:
I don't know who David Hamilton is... I looked him up and he is British. As for Traci Lords, I have seen this statement many times and in several different sources. I knew this before even looking it up.



The only thing I had wrong was it was Penthouse, not Playboy...

Traci Lords - Biography

I'm not sure how accurate that biography is. Wikipedia makes no mention of it being illegal and I do know for a fact the Jock Sturges had his studio raided by the FBI and all his images and equipment confiscated for nude images of children. He later won the case and became extremely famous in the art photography world.

And of course there is David Hamilton too.

The only hang up I can think of is Parental consent as a hang up.
 
This came up in another thread, but I felt it warrants it's own discussion.

The scenario is a minor, takes naked/sexual pictures of themselves, and posts it on the internet. Now my question is, are they distributing child pornography, and if so, should they be prosecuted like any other child pornographer?

Thoughts?

It would be hard to prosecute a minor unless they were to be tried as an adult. That more than likely wouldn't be the case here, but if I were the parents I would take the camera and limit the computer priveleges. The parents might consider counseling as well because this person could be asking for trouble if it continues.
 
If anyone has been arrested for owning this Playboy, it's a perfect example of people losing all common sense over this issue. Do you really think people should be arrested if they are in possession of this magazine?

It's not legal for minors to pose nude in playboy/penthouse...

Has anybody ever been arrested for owning that Penthouse, I don't know. The fact is she lied about her age, and used a fake ID... It's possible somebody owns it and simply doesn't know it's illegal. They don't deserve to go to jail or prison for child pornography... That would be excessive IMO. But it's not legal to sell that edition of the magazine. If there is evidence the person knows the situation and is still selling or possessing the photos, then it's more practical that that individual be charged. The producers destroyed her illegal movies upon knowledge she was underage, which is the proper thing to do. If they refused and still sold and produced those movies, then, yeah, of course they should be charged. However, this thread isn't all about charges or discussing what those charges should be.


Meh, whatever. Again, who is harmed by that? I don't buy the line of thinking that someone is inherently victimized by other people privately fantasizing about them...whether they're a minor or adult.

Other people fantasizing about them? WTF.. you could use that argument if were discussing explicit images of sexual abuse too. The minor isn't literally being abused every time you look at an imagine of them being abused... Those images are just a for fantasy purposes.

What's wrong with peeping toms? What's wrong with hidden cameras in your bedroom? There is no law against pervs having a right to get off. They need their fantasies too... it's not hurting you.


This is true. But saying it isn't wise is FAR from the same as saying they should be arrested for it.

I never said anything about arresting them.


I think society has far bigger things to worry about. Frankly the moral panic in this country surrounding the sexualization of minors is a bit silly IMO. So yes, punish the people who actually molest children, but I could care less about somebody getting their rocks off to a picture some teenager uploaded to the web. And the idea of punishing the "victim" themselves is ludicrous.

The OP asked for opinions on this matter, and I simply gave mine. I am not in the midst of a moral panic, and I think you're being ridiculous, irrational, and not paying attention if you're suggesting that I am. I think my opinion is logical and practical, not emotional hysteria.

It's not legal for a minor to pose nude in playboy/penthouse, etc. the internet is public domain, and it should be illegal for a website to host nude photos of minors even if they are simply posing not having sex. If a minor breaks the law themselves, then some action should be taken. I don't think the minor should be charged with distribution of child porn or anything like that. I don't think it should be a serious charge. If anything they should be legally required to remove the photos and get a warning... whatever it shouldn't go beyond the juvenile courts and it shouldn't follow them throughout their life. I think jail time would be excessive. At the most, they should pay a fine. Furthermore, the law could address this with laws pertaining to operating sites like Facebook or the purchase of domains, which the law probably does already.


I would suggest that being convicted of child pornography because they took a photo of themselves, is going to haunt them a lot more than the photo itself would.



And what do you suggest be done about that? Dumb teenagers will be dumb teenagers. :shrug:

Again, I am not suggesting that Kim or other teenagers should go to jail. All I have said is that there such situations involve the exploitation of minors, and they are often times too young and naive to realize the risks involved in those decisions. I also wouldn't enjoy the thought of pedophiles trading personal photos of me, my daughters, or nieces like that.

You're the one acting like there is nothing wrong with minors uploading nude photos on the internet and pedophiles getting off and fantasizing about them.
 
So, because they don't understand the outcomes of uploading nudie pictures of themselves, what we should do is arrest them, charge them with producing child pornography and place them on the sex offenders list for life. That'll sure learn 'em, good.

Show me where I said people should be arrested?
 
Last edited:
What risk? That other people online might view it? I think anyone with a passing understanding of the internet can figure that out.



All the more reason not to arrest them and treat them like some kind of crazed pervert, for an act that didn't harm anyone except (possibly) themselves.



Sounds like a good reason for their parents to talk to them about the dangers of doing this sort of thing. Sounds like a horrid reason to criminally prosecute them after the fact.

I am tired of battling your strawman that I want people arrested. I never said I wanted minors arrested. I do find some of the statements you actually said to be of more concern.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure how accurate that biography is. Wikipedia makes no mention of it being illegal and I do know for a fact the Jock Sturges had his studio raided by the FBI and all his images and equipment confiscated for nude images of children. He later won the case and became extremely famous in the art photography world.

And of course there is David Hamilton too.

The only hang up I can think of is Parental consent as a hang up.

The guy was from the UK and they might have different rules there, but nobody has ever posed for Playboy or Penthouse as a minor. Traci lied about her age.

When I lived in Germany, I'd sometimes seem children on TV nude... but it was usually in the form of documentaries and one place on TV was a nude beach. That wasn't supposed to be sexually arousing. Penthouse/Playbody is supposed to be sexually arousing and it's sexually explicit.
 
All I have said is that there such situations involve the exploitation of minors, and they are often times too young and naive to realize the risks involved in those decisions.

I'm curious how you feel about parental notification laws involving abortions for minors.
 
The guy was from the UK and they might have different rules there,

I worked at a photography book store in NYC.

David Hamilton was one of the best sellers.

So were Sally Mann, Jock Sturges, Nan Goldin and Larry Clark. All who have made images of nude children in the USA.

but nobody has ever posed for Playboy or Penthouse as a minor. Traci lied about her age.

That has nothing to do with it being legal or not as far as I know.

When I lived in Germany, I'd sometimes seem children on TV nude... but it was usually in the form of documentaries and one place on TV was a nude beach. That wasn't supposed to be sexually arousing. Penthouse/Playbody is supposed to be sexually arousing and it's sexually explicit.

I think Playboy has published David Hamilton images.
 
I'm curious how you feel about parental notification laws involving abortions for minors.

I don't see what that has to do with the topic...
 
Back
Top Bottom