• 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
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.



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



I think Playboy has published David Hamilton images.

If age has nothing to do with it, then why don't minors pose nude in Playboy?
 
If age has nothing to do with it, then why don't minors pose nude in Playboy?

I doubt Playboy wants the headache.

Look at the flak French Vogue is getting right now.
 
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?

Technically it is child porn in the sense that the pictures are of nude minors and these minors are distributing those pictures. That said child porn laws are generally viewed to protect children that are 12 and under from sickos trying to make child porn, not protect dumbass teenagers from emailing (or what ever it is called) nude pictures of themselves to each other. Only a liar would say that the intent of these anti-child porn laws is to punish teenagers from emailing nude pictures to each other. Technically it may be child porn however they should not be criminally charged for it. Personally I think the maybe a female officer should show these dumb ass teenagers what happens when a female decides to send a nude pic or video of herself to her boyfriend, which wouldn't be that hard because they can google cam whore, cam slut, nude cams and so on. I think on some cable tv stations they started running public service commercials why you should not send nude pics to someone else.
 
Last edited:
I don't see what that has to do with the topic...

You wrote "they are often times too young and naive to realize the risks involved in those decisions." and this is what concerned parents who are opposed to letting teen girls have the right to decide on abortions for themselves also believe. I was just curious on how you came down on the issue.
 
I doubt Playboy wants the headache.

Look at the flak French Vogue is getting right now.

I think the difference is that your examples are not supposed to be sexually arousing or explicit... Playboy and Penthouse are about sex and it's intended to sexually arouse.
 
You wrote "they are often times too young and naive to realize the risks involved in those decisions." and this is what concerned parents who are opposed to letting teen girls have the right to decide on abortions for themselves also believe. I was just curious on how you came down on the issue.

Talking about abortion in the thread would divert the topic... the abortion issue always does that.
 
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.

There is nothing illegal about being a peeping tom. Installing a hidden camera in your bedroom is illegal because involves breaking and entering. Spying on ladies at the nude beach is perfectly legal. The state has no compelling interest if creepy guys want to get off or not. The only interest in child pornography is protecting children, which is why it is ridiculous to use it to charge them with crimes.
 
There is nothing illegal about being a peeping tom. Installing a hidden camera in your bedroom is illegal because involves breaking and entering. Spying on ladies at the nude beach is perfectly legal. The state has no compelling interest if creepy guys want to get off or not. The only interest in child pornography is protecting children, which is why it is ridiculous to use it to charge them with crimes.

Pretty sure there are laws against peeping toms, and you don't have to break and enter to install a camera in the bedroom. I have heard about landlords doing that very thing. And some celebrity built a hotel and installed cameras in the women's bathroom. I remember hearing about that. He apparently had a toilet fetish.
 
Talking about abortion in the thread would divert the topic... the abortion issue always does that.

Fair enough. Do you recall if you've ever given your opinion on parental consent issues for abortion. If so, would you direct me to the thread. I'm curious to see whether you, and others, believe that young girls are mature enough to have control over medical/surgical decisions for their bodies but not mature enough to take naked pictures of themselves.
 
I think the difference is that your examples are not supposed to be sexually arousing or explicit... Playboy and Penthouse are about sex and it's intended to sexually arouse.

Ithink the images she did in Penthouse were sex. I caught a glimpse of them on a oogle search (cropped versions).

So I was wrong.

But it lead to a good convo I hope.

I still don't think if Penthouse or Playboy published Sally Mann the images would become suddenly illegal though.
 
I still don't think if Penthouse or Playboy published Sally Mann the images would become suddenly illegal though.

I just read a little bit more about Pretty Baby with Brooke Shields. She was 12, not 10, when she filmed that movie and she was totally nude in it. It was shown all across the US. The film earned a number of positive reviews, including one from Roger Ebert and another from the New York Times.

I'm wondering if the laws have changed so significantly from the 1970s.
 
While it is unquestionably child pornography, I wouldn't charge the individual with a crime, I certainly would contact the parents and let them know what their child is doing and remind them that, so long as she is a minor, they are legally responsible for her actions. The next time, I wouldn't be so nice.
 
Pretty sure there are laws against peeping toms, and you don't have to break and enter to install a camera in the bedroom. I have heard about landlords doing that very thing. And some celebrity built a hotel and installed cameras in the women's bathroom. I remember hearing about that. He apparently had a toilet fetish.

Installing camera's in bathroom is illegal because it violates the expectation of privacy, not because voyeurism is illegal. It doesn't matter whether or not the owner plans to whack it to the footage or not. The state has no reason to care what people get off on, only on protecting the rights of its citizens. A minor posting their own naked picture may be foolish, but they are not infringing upon anyone's else rights.
 
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?

I have an additional question to add to yours:

What if the underaged is distributing naked photos of themselves to another underaged person?
 
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?

I'm not sure why everyone has to take everything so literally and can't come up with ideas on their own easily. If this was caught at school perhaps counseling to the problems this could cause might be appropriate. No?

Perhaps a class that is graphic that shows what things like this could lead to if a person with bad intents gets hold of pics like this?
 
Last edited:
Actually perhaps the law enforcement first should find out whether the child was coerced, conned, and or forced from off the camera, if so then yes prosecute the adult. Although if this isn't the case making a child into a felon is counter productive and will be for the child and society for many years to come, so how would this be helpful in correcting the child behavior. There is a reason why this child would do such a thing, many children engage in actions due to some other motivations or mimicking some else's actions...just IMO of course.
 
Last edited:
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.

Why do people do this? I disagree with charging them with CP also but there is no need for the hypoerbole. Except for very rare cases a minors record does not follow them into adulthood.
 
I have an additional question to add to yours:

What if the underaged is distributing naked photos of themselves to another underaged person?

In preparation for that case, teach children that the sight of nudity is not going to burn their retina.
 
Actually perhaps the law enforcement first should find out whether the child was coerced, conned, and or forced from off the camera, if so then yes prosecute.

This is a very good point as to why someone does need to get involved.

Although if this isn't the case making a child into a felon is counter productive and will be for the child and society for many years to come, so how would this be helpful in correcting the child behavior. There is a reason why this child would do such a thing, many children engage in actions due to some other motivations or mimicking some else's actions...just IMO of course.

Again though, it's extremely rare that we charge a minor with a felony and the only cases I can think of is with murder. Even those who said it should be CP said they wouldn't support it following them into adulthood.
 
Installing camera's in bathroom is illegal because it violates the expectation of privacy, not because voyeurism is illegal.

Voyeurism is illegal in many cases. Before you get into a "expectation of privacy" what was he charged with?

Man pleads guilty to Mall voyeurism

If you look you can find all sorts of people charged with voyeurism for doing all sorts of things.

It doesn't matter whether or not the owner plans to whack it to the footage or not. The state has no reason to care what people get off on, only on protecting the rights of its citizens. A minor posting their own naked picture may be foolish, but they are not infringing upon anyone's else rights.

People are arrested all the time for having child pornography on their computers to get off on. They didn't take the pics in most cases. Simply have nude pics of a minor on your computer and you'll get arrested.
 
This is a very good point as to why someone does need to get involved.



Again though, it's extremely rare that we charge a minor with a felony and the only cases I can think of is with murder. Even those who said it should be CP said they wouldn't support it following them into adulthood.
Even those who said it should be CP said they wouldn't support it following them into adulthood.
Then what is the point of CP then? The child won't know any different but what will happen is that the child will have a label and to what purpose will this serve. Perhaps grounding the child for 1 month or more(depending on age) will do more to serve in correcting the behavior than any CP, not to mention we don't have to expose a child to criminal proceedings and tying up our family and or criminal courts.
 
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?

Even though it is themselves, it's technically child porn. Should we do something about it? If some adult ends up with the picture, he's going to jail. Is it right to let underage kids release nude sexual pics of themselves unto the internet wherein other people will then get into serious trouble if they are found with them? I don't know. On one hand it's their own body and I can't think of a proper argument as to why they shouldn't be allowed. On the other hand, the repercussions are serious and can involve many others.
 
Why do people do this? I disagree with charging them with CP also but there is no need for the hypoerbole. Except for very rare cases a minors record does not follow them into adulthood.


An Oklahoma teenager is swept up in laws aimed at protecting kids from child predators. He must register as a sex offender for life, as the worst level offender, after having a sex with his girlfriend, who said she was his age, 16. Sex between teenagers is no longer just a moral issue, it's a legal one.​



Phillip Alpert found out the hard way. He had just turned 18 when he sent a naked photo of his 16-year-old girlfriend, a photo she had taken and sent him, to dozens of her friends and family after an argument. The high school sweethearts had been dating for almost 2½ years. "It was a stupid thing I did because I was upset and tired and it was the middle of the night and I was an immature kid," says Alpert.

Orlando, Florida, police didn't see it that way. Alpert was arrested and charged with sending child pornography, a felony to which he pleaded no contest but was later convicted. He was sentenced to five years probation and required by Florida law to register as a sex offender.​
 
Fair enough. Do you recall if you've ever given your opinion on parental consent issues for abortion. If so, would you direct me to the thread. I'm curious to see whether you, and others, believe that young girls are mature enough to have control over medical/surgical decisions for their bodies but not mature enough to take naked pictures of themselves.

No, I don't think I have given a strong opinion because I don't have a strong opinion on that... I also think you are comparing apples to oranges. If a minor uploads photos online, they don't know the risk and they aren't required to be informed of those risks. If a minor makes the decision to continue a pregnancy or abort, a professional should inform them of the risk. Although they are still a minor, they should still be informed about the side effects and possible outcomes. Also if a young girl is pregnant and has to make that decision, then she is confronting the possible risks of engaging in sex. A more appropriate comparison would be comparing uploading nude photos online, to deciding to have sexual intercourse.
 
Ithink the images she did in Penthouse were sex. I caught a glimpse of them on a oogle search (cropped versions).

So I was wrong.

But it lead to a good convo I hope.

I still don't think if Penthouse or Playboy published Sally Mann the images would become suddenly illegal though.

This question has already been answered.

Who was the youngest Playmate of the Month? The legal age limit is, of course, 18. However, supposedly Elizabeth Ann Roberts, in the January 1958 issue, was only 16 at the time. Her mother accompanied her to the photo session, and claimed she was 18. She was also attending college at the time. Both Playboy and Miss Roberts' mother were charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor, charges later dropped.

Marion Dreyfus: Counting Playboy

n the United States, pornography is considered a form of personal expression, and thus governed by the First Amendment to the Constitution. Pornography is generally protected speech, unless it is obscene, as the Supreme Court of the United States held in 1973 in Miller v. California.

Child pornography is also not protected by the First Amendment, but importantly, for different reasons. In 1982 the Supreme Court held in New York v. Ferber that child pornography, even if not obscene, is not protected speech. The court gave a number of justifications why child pornography should not be protected, including that the government has a compelling interest in safeguarding the physical and psychological well being of minors.

Child pornography laws in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Can I pose for playboy this young? - Yahoo! Answers

Everything that I have read states there is a difference between posing nude in a sexuality explicit manner, a manner in which attention is drawn to the genitals or meant to create sexual arousal, than there is to posing nude for artwork... A child simply being naked is not a crime. I have watched travel channel document life in African and South American communities, and I have seen naked children on TV there. I have even seen young children going through puberty naked on those shows, but it's not rated R. That's because it's not sexually explicit. Simply put, pornography and nudity are not the same. The only time a minor has been in Playboy in America, they lied, and that should tell you something.
 
Back
Top Bottom