• 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

Your Star

Rage More!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
27,381
Reaction score
20,154
Location
Georgia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Socialist
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?
 
Of course not. This is a good example of where people just lose all common sense for the actual purpose behind laws.
 
If I recall some news stories correctly in my mind, which granted I'm not entirely sure the country in which this happened, but children have indeed been prosecuted for producing and distributing Child Pornography in the past for your exact scenario.

Khandahars assessment is spot on.
 
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?

Any picture of a minor in a sexual context is child pornography. But no, it doesn't make sense to prosecute a minor for taking pictures of themselves. That has happened occasionally, though:

Child Porn Laws Used Against Kids Who Photograph Themselves | Threat Level | Wired.com
 
Seems easy to me.

Of course they are not child pornographers.

They are rambunctious hormone flooded teenagers who need their cell phones taken away and their access to the internet severely limited until they begin to understand the full ramifications of posting pictures of your private bits for (in the end) any pervert online to add to his(or her) collection.
 
crimes should require a victim, and I reject the idea that a person can victimize themselves to the degree that necessitates state intervention.
 
They should not be prosecuted as a child pornographer but we have to make an effort to let it be known that it isn't acceptable.
 
They should not be prosecuted as a child pornographer but we have to make an effort to let it be known that it isn't acceptable.

if, in fact, the kid takes the pictures and posts them on the internet, she is distributing child pornography. the way to let her know that is to charge her, put her on probation, and in fact take what she did very, very seriously. THAT'S a good way to let her know it's not acceptable.
 
The purpose of criminalizing child porn is to prevent the victimization of children. I don't know how one could argue that a completely voluntary action, with the person's own body, could be victimization.

To expand on this discussion, what about animated porn depicting children? Clearly no actual children were engaged in sexual activity in the making of a cartoon. Should this also be criminal? It's gone back and forth a few times in the last decade. It seems to me that the making of a child porn video is where the harm is done. The argument is often that making it illegal lessens the market and makes it less likely to be profitable, but wouldn't a harmless replica, that doesn't use actual children, push the illegal and more difficult variety out of the market?
 
if, in fact, the kid takes the pictures and posts them on the internet, she is distributing child pornography. the way to let her know that is to charge her, put her on probation, and in fact take what she did very, very seriously. THAT'S a good way to let her know it's not acceptable.

I'm not going to charge her with child pornography. (the first time)
 
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 think something should be done legally, but in the juvenile court system and their record should be expunged when they are older. They are harming themselves with those photos, a pedophile could get them and they could be further distributed. They could even be sending them directly to pedophiles without even knowing it. I don't think it should be legal.
 
Of course not. This is a good example of where people just lose all common sense for the actual purpose behind laws.

I think your response is insane given the scenario proposed... She is talking about a minor uploading these photos on the internet/public domain, not simply taking a picture of themselves naked and giving it to their boyfriend or girlfriend. The later has some gray areas.

If a website hosts naked pictures of a minor, then that website is violating child pornography laws. It doesn't matter if a minor is managing the photos or the website. It doesn't change the fact that those photos are there for anybody and everybody to view, including pedophiles.
 
if, in fact, the kid takes the pictures and posts them on the internet, she is distributing child pornography. the way to let her know that is to charge her, put her on probation, and in fact take what she did very, very seriously. THAT'S a good way to let her know it's not acceptable.

How can one simultaneously be an evil exploiter of children and be the victim of said evil exploitation.

These crazy prosecutions are the logical equivalent of arresting a masturbating woman for raping herself.
 
I think something should be done legally, but in the juvenile court system and their record should be expunged when they are older. They are harming themselves with those photos, a pedophile could get them and they could be further distributed. They could even be sending them directly to pedophiles without even knowing it. I don't think it should be legal.

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.
 
The purpose of criminalizing child porn is to prevent the victimization of children. I don't know how one could argue that a completely voluntary action, with the person's own body, could be victimization.

To expand on this discussion, what about animated porn depicting children? Clearly no actual children were engaged in sexual activity in the making of a cartoon. Should this also be criminal? It's gone back and forth a few times in the last decade. It seems to me that the making of a child porn video is where the harm is done. The argument is often that making it illegal lessens the market and makes it less likely to be profitable, but wouldn't a harmless replica, that doesn't use actual children, push the illegal and more difficult variety out of the market?

does the actual law say anything about there having to be a victim? i don't believe it does. and if a minor can't make the decision for herself, such as being able to consent to sex, why should she be able to post herself nasked on the internet. i'm not advocating jail time, but charging such a person could lead to counseling, which the girl clearly needs if she pasting herself all over the interwebz. or her family life should be investigated.

then, when she's 18, she can get a job as a stripper.
 
How can one simultaneously be an evil exploiter of children and be the victim of said evil exploitation.

These crazy prosecutions are the logical equivalent of arresting a masturbating woman for raping herself.

she broke a law. perhaps we should change the law.
 
she broke a law. perhaps we should change the law.

You do realize that as you go about your life today the odds are pretty damn good that you'll be breaking one of the 100,000+ laws that currently exist.
 
does the actual law say anything about there having to be a victim? i don't believe it does. and if a minor can't make the decision for herself, such as being able to consent to sex, why should she be able to post herself nasked on the internet. i'm not advocating jail time, but charging such a person could lead to counseling, which the girl clearly needs if she pasting herself all over the interwebz. or her family life should be investigated.

then, when she's 18, she can get a job as a stripper.

If she's the victimizer, then who is the victim of the her crime?
 
does the actual law say anything about there having to be a victim? i don't believe it does. and if a minor can't make the decision for herself, such as being able to consent to sex, why should she be able to post herself nasked on the internet. i'm not advocating jail time, but charging such a person could lead to counseling, which the girl clearly needs if she pasting herself all over the interwebz. or her family life should be investigated.

then, when she's 18, she can get a job as a stripper.


The victim here can be any other underage child that view her/his uploaded pornography....just like trespassing in an open field to take a walk...theres no victim unless you want to consider the owner a victim of someone stepping on his ground.
 
The crime committed with child pornography is when children are exploited in creating it. Possession of said materials is illegal based on the concept that creating demand for CP leads to children being abused to create supply. Charging anyone for a picture they took of themselves is completely absurd. I find it disgusting that laws that theoretically protect children are used to prosecute them instead. If you aren't mature enough to make choices about sex, then you definitely aren't mature enough to be prosecuted for them either.
 
It doesn't matter if a minor is managing the photos or the website. It doesn't change the fact that those photos are there for anybody and everybody to view, including pedophiles.

Who cares? Those laws are in place to protect children from exploitation by adults, not to prevent pedophiles from getting off.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom