Child porn?

[Danoff]

If that is child porn aren't little pictures of you in the bathtub naked while your a baby technically child porn. If you had taken naked pictures of yourself when you were younger and kept them until you were older is also child porn.

No. The legal classification of something as being pornography does not include such images - that's not to say it's a clear definition, but there is a legal standard that is applied.

I've been trying to come up with a modification to the law to exclude this case but make sure that it doesn't open the door for adults to coerce children into it, and I'm having a hard time.

Can she take an image of herself and sell it? Could a 10 year old who finds out that she can make money by taking images of herself and selling them on the internet be prosecuted? These are not simple questions.

 

[Rykon Zero]

The legal system is so messed up, I wonder if I could file a lawsuit against my right hand for sexually molesting me.

 

[niky]

And if this can count as statutorily raping herself then what does that mean for kids that <think of tasteful way to say it> become curious about their own bodies? I can't fathom a way that someone can sexually harm themselves that would be considered illegal.

And this is where the whole issue falls flat on its face.

You can't prosecute someone for self-pornography or abuse... it's unprecedented... (well, in the US... any kind of pornography is effectively illegal in the country I'm residing in).

Let's face it... nobody wants to talk about it, but kids learn about their bodies... and learn early. Boys usually start doing the "M" word in their pre-teens (some earlier, some later), while girls... well, I don't know how girls do it... but girls can become sexually mature as early as 8 years old.

it's not something that many are comfortable to discuss, and I can imagine I'll start taking to drink as soon as my daughter is in high school and meeting boys, but sexual awareness starts at home,

You can prosecute, I suppose, adults who actively solicit child porn from minors, but to prosecute minors for the possession of nude pictures of themselves (which could or could not be porn, depending on the situations therein depicted) is silly.

I don't think it warrants an arrest. Let alone labelling as a sexual offender. More like it warrants a nice visit to a social worker and a few hundred hours of therapy... maybe a few thousand now that they've traumatized the poor girl by arresting her.

 

[BayConRong]

why is porno illegal in the philippines?

 

[niky]

Catholic Country. Possession or creation of pornography of any kind is punishable by law.

Doesn't stop street vendors from hawking pirated DVD rips of everything from "College Girls Gone Wild" to "Bang Bus", but it's illegal.

Of course, that's to be expected in a country where they tried to stop the showing of the "Da Vinci Code" by issuing it an "X" Rating (think they settled for "R", because our most prominent theater chain refuses to show "R" rated movies).

 

[homeforsummer]

Of course, that's to be expected in a country where they tried to stop the showing of the "Da Vinci Code" by issuing it an "X" Rating (think they settled for "R", because our most prominent theater chain refuses to show "R" rated movies).

You think that's bad, in my home town, religious groups banned Monty Python's "The Life of Bryan" from being shown at the cinema when it was released for being blasphemous, and people only overturned the ban a few years back! It was finally shown at the cinema, a good 25-ish years after it was released...

Can she take an image of herself and sell it? Could a 10 year old who finds out that she can make money by taking images of herself and selling them on the internet be prosecuted? These are not simple questions.

They aren't at all. Re: The hypothetical ten year old, I suspect little could be done. I know that in the UK, ten is the cut-off point between being a "child" and being a "juvenile" in the eyes of the law. In a case such as this, I'd suspect they'd be considered as a child (though their parents may get a slap on the wrist) and that they hadn't knowingly broken the law - they were just naive. If a 10-year old had thrown a rock through someone's window, then they'd be considered criminally responsible and more liable to tell the difference between legal and illegal.

As they get older it gets harder to judge, but I suspect that in the case being discussed, naivity still played a part, and the girl was simply unaware that it could be considered such a serious issue. That's where the difference between the girl taking pictures of herself, and an adult knowingly taking pictures of a minor lies - the adult would know full well they were breaking the law. The minor might not.

For that reason, I think that any punishment along the lines of being registered as a sex offender or any sort of sentence is probably unfair in the circumstances, even if the images are deemed to be "pornographic" rather than just "nude images".

 

[FoolKiller]

You can prosecute, I suppose, adults who actively solicit child porn from minors, but to prosecute minors for the possession of nude pictures of themselves (which could or could not be porn, depending on the situations therein depicted) is silly.

See, this is it right here. If this girl is found guilty then every case like this risks having a precedent to charge the minor. If a minor is knowingly sending explicit images of themselves to an adult then they are just as guilty as the girl in the OP.

Imagine a Dateline NBC's "To Catch a Predator" special surprising teen girls with cops right behind them.

 

[niky]

"Excuse me little missy, would you like to sell me photos of yourself and yourfriends?"

(Girl a little discombobulated by the request) "S-Sure..."

"Ah-ha! You're under arrest for trading in child pornography!"

"B-b-but I was just g-g-going to give you pictures from the cheerleading open..."