• 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 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.

Nudity and pornography are not the same... I don't have a problem with nudity, even children being nude. I watched a show about a woman that was charged with child porn because she look pictures of her kids playing, and they were nude in some of those photos. That was extreme, and the charges were eventually dropped.
 
As a recent high school graduate, I've had experiences with this stuff. A girl in my grade posted naked pictures of herself on the Internet. She wasn't charged with anything, but the shame that it brought forced to her to move. Doing this kind of thing is incredibly stupid, and the "victim/perpetrator" will probably experience plenty of social pressure to not do it again. There is no reason to bring in the DA.

When people think "sex offenders", they think "Creep in the bushes." They want to punish this person, and legislators are more than willing to win their vote by passing laws that are tough on sex offenders. I say, good, punish the child molestors and rapists. Make them wish they hadn't done what they did, so that they don't do it again. The problem is that these punishments often extend to people who don't deserve them, like 18 year-olds having sex with their 17 year-old girlfriends. Lumping in teenage porn stars, public urinaters, and people a few months senior to their significant others with rapists and child molestors is ridiculous, flies in the face of the 8th Amendment, and does nothing to make us or our children safer. Charging minors for distributing pictures of themselves are ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
Voyeurism is illegal in many cases. Before you get into a "expectation of privacy" what was he charged with?

The name of the charge is irrelevant. The women in the dressing room had an expectation of privacy and putting a phone under the door violated that. If the guy had watched a couple having sex on a public sidewalk, he would still be a voyeur but not guilty of anything.

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.

I already explained that. Possession is banned under the concept that obtaining it creates demand and thus leads to more children being exploited.
 
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.

Well, a peeping tom also violates the expectation of privacy... If somebody is peeping in my windows, I have no right to protect my privacy in that case?

In the United States, video voyeurism is an offense in nine states and may require the convicted criminal to register as a sex offender.[10] The original case that led to the criminalization of voyeurism has been made into a television movie called Video Voyeur and documents the criminalization of secret photography. Criminal voyeurism statutes are related to invasion of privacy laws[11] but are specific to unlawful surreptitious surveillance without consent and unlawful recordings including the broadcast, dissemination, publication, or selling of recordings involving places and times when a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a reasonable supposition they are not being photographed or filmed by "any mechanical, digital or electronic viewing device, camera or any other instrument capable of recording, storing or transmitting visual images that can be utilized to observe a person."[12]

Voyeurism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Pedophile rings trading videos of sex crimes doesn't violate anybody's rights either... it's not hurting anybody... they are just getting off. Why isn't child pornography and owning video of such crimes against the law then?
 
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.

I feel the same way, they could potentially get other people in trouble and they can potentially get themselves in trouble if the wrong people find those photos and start trading them. It's all around a bad idea, and the minor is acting socially irresponsible, but the minor is also too naive to probably understand that. I definitely don't think they should be charged with felony, but it definitely shouldn't be a legally protected behavior either.
 
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.​

The top one is ridiculous, but the bottom one was predictable. You can be charged with a crime if you send pornography to people over the phone. I have heard of many people getting charges for that. My mom knows somebody who sent a photo of a naked fat lady singing about eating chicken, as a joke, to one of her friends, but she entered the wrong number. It went to an old lady. The old lady called the police, and she was charged with a crime. It's pretty easy for the police to figure out who you are too, because your number is attached to the message.

I don't send porn or those lewd jokes with my phone because of that.
 
As a recent high school graduate, I've had experiences with this stuff. A girl in my grade posted naked pictures of herself on the Internet. She wasn't charged with anything, but the shame that it brought forced to her to move. Doing this kind of thing is incredibly stupid, and the "victim/perpetrator" will probably experience plenty of social pressure to not do it again. There is no reason to bring in the DA.

When people think "sex offenders", they think "Creep in the bushes." They want to punish this person, and legislators are more than willing to win their vote by passing laws that are tough on sex offenders. I say, good, punish the child molestors and rapists. Make them wish they hadn't done what they did, so that they don't do it again. The problem is that these punishments often extend to people who don't deserve them, like 18 year-olds having sex with their 17 year-old girlfriends. Lumping in teenage porn stars, public urinaters, and people a few months senior to their significant others with rapists and child molestors is ridiculous, flies in the face of the 8th Amendment, and does nothing to make us or our children safer. Charging minors for distributing pictures of themselves are ridiculous.

I feel the same way, which is why I mentioned Kim Kardashian's experience in one of my posts. She was a naive child, but the fact that she knows pedophiles are out looking for those pics of her, is a huge emotional burden on her... and it's understandable. If you want to argue that they should have control over their bodies, it doesn't make sense... because once those photos are out, they can lose control over those images quickly.

I am just really annoyed that some people in this thread have more or less stated their support for this type of behavior, and act as though they see no issue with it. On top of that they try to ****ing act like these kids have no right to feel hurt or victimized by the fact that pedophiles could end up exploiting those images. They basically want to give these kids a mile of slack to end up getting themselves hurt, and label it freedom or something. :shrug:
 
The name of the charge is irrelevant. The women in the dressing room had an expectation of privacy and putting a phone under the door violated that. If the guy had watched a couple having sex on a public sidewalk, he would still be a voyeur but not guilty of anything.



I already explained that. Possession is banned under the concept that obtaining it creates demand and thus leads to more children being exploited.

Which is why peeping toms are not behaving legally. If somebody is standing in my yard, on my property, and is watching me through my windows... that is violating my privacy. It's not illegal to watch something occur in public, even if the act occurring in public is illegal or lewd. The profession of photography is legal... The paparazzi is legal. Somebody simply watching you have sex is not a crime either... people do it all the time when making porn movies, etc. Violating somebody's privacy to watch them have sex is against the law.

... next
 
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?

It doesn't need to be a crime for that to happen. The school counselor can talk to the student to about it; there is no expectation of due process to meet with a school counselor. For that matter, if you really wanted to scare them ****less you could have a cop talk to them about it. Again, there's no expectation of due process if it's just a discussion.
 
Last edited:
I feel the same way, which is why I mentioned Kim Kardashian's experience in one of my posts. She was a naive child, but the fact that she knows pedophiles are out looking for those pics of her, is a huge emotional burden on her... and it's understandable. If you want to argue that they should have control over their bodies, it doesn't make sense... because once those photos are out, they can lose control over those images quickly.

Again, good reason for parents/teachers/whoever to talk to minors about why they shouldn't do this. It's still a horrid reason for the legal system to get involved.

I am just really annoyed that some people in this thread have more or less stated their support for this type of behavior, and act as though they see no issue with it.

Yeah because not wanting to throw a teenager in jail for being a teenager is clearly the same as "seeing no issue with it." :roll:
You posted in a thread about whether or not this was a crime, talking about how dangerous this behavior was...then you called it a straw man when I suggested that criminally punishing the "victim" was counterproductive. So I still have no idea what, if anything, you are suggesting needs to be done.

On top of that they try to ****ing act like these kids have no right to feel hurt or victimized by the fact that pedophiles could end up exploiting those images.

They can feel hurt and victimized all they like. How is that situation made better by the law getting involved and charging the minor with a crime?

They basically want to give these kids a mile of slack to end up getting themselves hurt, and label it freedom or something. :shrug:

Although there are some exceptions, I'm generally skeptical about laws meant to protect people from themselves, especially when they involve significant punishments to the "victim" for actions that are unlikely to result in significant harm. There are a lot of stupid, self-destructive things that teenagers do that are a lot more harmful than posting nude pictures of themselves online.
 
Last edited:
I feel the same way, which is why I mentioned Kim Kardashian's experience in one of my posts. She was a naive child, but the fact that she knows pedophiles are out looking for those pics of her, is a huge emotional burden on her... and it's understandable. If you want to argue that they should have control over their bodies, it doesn't make sense... because once those photos are out, they can lose control over those images quickly.

It is stupidity, but it is their choice. They may have lost control of the images, but they chose to put them there.


I am just really annoyed that some people in this thread have more or less stated their support for this type of behavior, and act as though they see no issue with it. On top of that they try to ****ing act like these kids have no right to feel hurt or victimized by the fact that pedophiles could end up exploiting those images. They basically want to give these kids a mile of slack to end up getting themselves hurt, and label it freedom or something. :shrug:

Nobody is excusing it. They are pointing out that no one is harmed by someone looking at pictures on the Internet. It's very creepy and younger kids may not understand, but the 14 and up crowd should know what they're getting into.
 
Again, good reason for parents/teachers/whoever to talk to minors about why they shouldn't do this. It's still a horrid reason for the legal system to get involved.



Yeah because not wanting to throw a teenager in jail for being a teenager is clearly the same as "seeing no issue with it." :roll:
You posted in a thread about whether or not this was a crime, talking about how dangerous this behavior was...then you called it a straw man when I suggested that criminally punishing the "victim" was counterproductive. So I still have no idea what, if anything, you are suggesting needs to be done.



They can feel hurt and victimized all they like. How is that situation made better by the law getting involved and charging the minor with a crime?



Although there are some exceptions, I'm generally skeptical about laws meant to protect people from themselves, especially when they involve significant punishments to the "victim" for actions that are unlikely to result in significant harm. There are a lot of stupid, self-destructive things that teenagers do that are a lot more harmful than posting nude pictures of themselves online.

I have said what I think should be done... pages back. I don't think that they should be charged with a serious crime, or that it should fall under first amendment rights of speech either. Do you think the scenario in the OP should fall under free speech like other porn does?
 
I have said what I think should be done... pages back. I don't think that they should be charged with a serious crime, or that it should fall under first amendment rights of speech either.

How does charging them with ANY crime make the situation better?

Do you think the scenario in the OP should fall under free speech like other porn does?

I think it falls under the "teenagers will be teenagers" section of the Constitution. ;)
Criminally punishing someone for this is a gross overreaction. The consequences probably range from nothing at all to temporary embarrassment. It's the kind of thing that's better addressed by their parents talking to them about the dangers and perhaps grounding them, than by the criminal justice system getting involved.

Ultimately there isn't much that anyone can do to stop teenagers from behaving like morons occasionally. And to the extent that I care about them behaving like morons, I choose to save my caring for those moronic behaviors that are actually likely to cause serious harm.
 
Last edited:
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.

Sorry, this is a silly analogy. Rape is sexual contact w/out consent. The concern over children being prosecuted for doing something like this is so over exaggerated compared to the times it's actually occurred. It makes me wonder who's actually behind wanting to tank child porn laws and why.
 
How does charging them with ANY crime make the situation better?



I think it falls under the "teenagers will be teenagers" section of the Constitution. ;)
Criminally punishing someone for this is a gross overreaction. The consequences probably range from nothing at all to temporary embarrassment. It's the kind of thing that's better addressed by their parents talking to them about the dangers and perhaps grounding them, than by the criminal justice system getting involved.

Ultimately there isn't much that anyone can do to stop teenagers from behaving like morons occasionally. And to the extent that I care about them behaving like morons, I choose to save my caring for those moronic behaviors that are actually likely to cause serious harm.

What if a teen uploads pic of their underage friends? Still think that's no harm, no foul?
 
I have another question.

What if the underaged lies and says they are legal age, and you receive their nude pic? What if they don't LOOK under 18 and their lie is believable?

What about the opposite?... where someone is legal age but they look child like?

How do we differentiate if a person is caught with these questionable photos? Also, is someone a "child pornographer" or trading in child porn if they only have 1 or 2 photos of a specific person, and not a collection?

These are issues that I have never seen addressed legally.
 
How does charging them with ANY crime make the situation better?

There are plenty of things to charge them with, but charging people has never been about making things better... it's about enforcing the law. I don't know what they should be charged with. I just know what I am not comfortable with charging them with... I still think the law should be enforced.

I think it falls under the "teenagers will be teenagers" section of the Constitution. ;)
Criminally punishing someone for this is a gross overreaction. The consequences probably range from nothing at all to temporary embarrassment. It's the kind of thing that's better addressed by their parents talking to them about the dangers and perhaps grounding them, than by the criminal justice system getting involved.

Ultimately there isn't much that anyone can do to stop teenagers from behaving like morons occasionally. And to the extent that I care about them behaving like morons, I choose to save my caring for those moronic behaviors that are actually likely to cause serious harm.

So do you think it should be protected free speech or not? And if so, then are you comfortable with minors posing as centerfolds in Playboy and Penthouse?
 
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.​

The person in Oklahoma has been taken off the sex offenders list and the second guy was 18.
 
What if a teen uploads pic of their underage friends? Still think that's no harm, no foul?

That's a bit sketchier, but I still don't think it would qualify as child porn. More like an invasion of privacy or something similar. I might be wrong about this, but I think it's illegal to do that without permission even if everyone involved is an adult.
 
The person in Oklahoma has been taken off the sex offenders list and the second guy was 18.

The second guy was a punk bitch for doing that to his girlfriend too...
 
It doesn't need to be a crime for that to happen. The school counselor can talk to the student to about it; there is no expectation of due process to meet with a school counselor. For that matter, if you really wanted to scare them ****less you could have a cop talk to them about it. Again, there's no expectation of due process if it's just a discussion.

However we do it, I'm not for charging her with a "crime". (the first time)
 
There are plenty of things to charge them with, but charging people has never been about making things better... it's about enforcing the law. I don't know what they should be charged with. I just know what I am not comfortable with charging them with... I still think the law should be enforced.

That doesn't make any sense. What is the point of having this law (or enforcing it), if not to try to make the situation better? Generally speaking, that should be the point of nearly ALL laws.

So do you think it should be protected free speech or not?

Meh, I don't really have an opinion on whether it's free speech. I'm just saying that it should not result in any criminal penalties.

And if so, then are you comfortable with minors posing as centerfolds in Playboy and Penthouse?

No. That's a lot closer to the reason child porn laws exist - to prevent adults from exploiting minors. Uploading an image of oneself, in contrast, involves no victim and no aggressor. Now, if someone lies about their age to pose in Playboy and the magazine has done due diligence and still didn't figure it out...then there's not really anything that the law can (or should) do about it.
 
That doesn't make any sense. What is the point of having this law (or enforcing it), if not to try to make the situation better? Generally speaking, that should be the point of nearly ALL laws.

Saying the law should attempt to make situations better doesn't make any sense...

Why do we arrest somebody for robbing a bank... because it makes the situation better.

Why arrest somebody for killing a cop... because it makes the situation better.

That doesn't make sense, nor do we base laws on improving people's situations or making a situation worse for somebody. If the law tried to make situations better, it would do things differently than it does. It would not simply lock somebody up in prison for a crime. Going to jail/prison can in fact make a situation worse for families. Especially when record companies charged kids for downloading music... I'd say that took a situation from not that bad into a really bad situation.

Meh, I don't really have an opinion on whether it's free speech. I'm just saying that it should not result in any criminal penalties.



No. That's a lot closer to the reason child porn laws exist - to prevent adults from exploiting minors. Uploading an image of oneself, in contrast, involves no victim and no aggressor. Now, if someone lies about their age to pose in Playboy and the magazine has done due diligence and still didn't figure it out...then there's not really anything that the law can (or should) do about it.

The situation in the OP isn't legal as it stands right now.... I posted the definition of child porn and it falls under that definition. Furthermore, a minor doing that sort of thing runs the risk of adults exploiting them anyway.
 
Saying the law should attempt to make situations better doesn't make any sense...

Why do we arrest somebody for robbing a bank... because it makes the situation better.

Why arrest somebody for killing a cop... because it makes the situation better.

Yes it does, by discouraging people from robbing banks and killing cops. Are you suggesting that teenagers from posting nude pics online is such a heinous act that it should be meted out with criminal penalties just like those other things, in order to discourage it? I would suggest that criminal punishments are appropriate for acts that harm others and are intolerable to society; somebody voluntarily posting pictures of themselves doesn't exactly qualify.

That doesn't make sense, nor do we base laws on improving people's situations or making a situation worse for somebody. If the law tried to make situations better, it would do things differently than it does. It would not simply lock somebody up in prison for a crime. Going to jail/prison can in fact make a situation worse for families. Especially when record companies charged kids for downloading music... I'd say that took a situation from not that bad into a really bad situation.

And so your solution is...to overreact in exactly the same way for ANOTHER "crime" where no one was really harmed?

The situation in the OP isn't legal as it stands right now.... I posted the definition of child porn and it falls under that definition.

Right, this is where that common sense thing that I mentioned comes into play. And how it is routinely abandoned in our criminal justice system...ESPECIALLY on this particular subject.

Furthermore, a minor doing that sort of thing runs the risk of adults exploiting them anyway.

How? If they took pictures of themselves and posted them online, no one exploited them. I hardly think that some pervert jacking off to the images in the privacy of his own home qualifies as "exploiting" them.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom