[Blue Lion]

Are written stories about the same thing considered child porn or are they completely different?

[headdie]

Are written stories about the same thing considered child porn or are they completely different?

If its fiction then it would have to be classified with the cartoon stuff, if non fiction then in my book it gets lumped with the vids and photos

[colecampbell666]

Thinking about this whole sexting thing, if a girl takes a picture of herself when she's say, 14, and then shows it to someone 5 years later, when she's legal, can she be charged?

[iamzack]

And can the person she gave it to be charged?

I guess that's a thing with consent. It's an image of herself, she can show it to whomever she pleases. :\ I'm not 100%, though.

[Snail]

And can the person she gave it to be charged?

I guess that's a thing with consent. It's an image of herself, she can show it to whomever she pleases. :\ I'm not 100%, though.

I recall a 14 year old girl got charged for taking an explicit picture of herself.

[colecampbell666]

And that's what I'm talking about.

[Bobboau]

that exact scenario has happened, with all the camera phones and 14 year olds getting sexed up despite the law, this is actually happening a lot and a lot of kids getting put on sex offender lists for abusing themselves.

[BloodEagle]

As far as the law is concerned, it's trafficking in CP. There was a case (see: Snail's post) where a teenage girl and her teenage boyfriend, whom she sent a picture of herself to, were tried and found guilty (IIRC) of trafficking in CP.

As far as the law is concerned, the animated stuff is as wrong and illegal as the real thing.

I'm not sure how the law views it in works of writing, but I would think that it would be allowed. You know, because of the storm that would rain down on them for banning books.

[colecampbell666]

that exact scenario has happened, with all the camera phones and 14 year olds getting sexed up despite the law, this is actually happening a lot and a lot of kids getting put on sex offender lists for abusing themselves.

What ever happened to the "Your body is yours only and no one can tell you what to do with it" propaganda?

[Bobboau]

As far as the law is concerned, it's trafficking in CP. There was a case (see: Snail's post) where a teenage girl and her teenage boyfriend, whom she sent a picture of herself to, were tried and found guilty (IIRC) of trafficking in CP.

As far as the law is concerned, the animated stuff is as wrong and illegal as the real thing.

I'm not sure how the law views it in works of writing, but I would think that it would be allowed. You know, because of the storm that would rain down on them for banning books.

actually, no, the law I believe is on the side of the pedos in this particular instance. as of this moment. though this does depend on which country you live in.

[iamzack]

that exact scenario has happened, with all the camera phones and 14 year olds getting sexed up despite the law, this is actually happening a lot and a lot of kids getting put on sex offender lists for abusing themselves.

What ever happened to the "Your body is yours only and no one can tell you what to do with it" propaganda?

It's a consent issue for me. If it can be proved that she took the picture of herself without any outside coercion, then... I don't know. It's CP, but no one has been abused. If she sends the photo to her boyfriend, no coercion, same thing.

The problem is when they break up and the boyfriend starts distributing without her consent. Consent is kind of murky here, though, because it can be hard to prove. :\

[da1edwin]

Does the law specify how old one has to be to be able to be [sic] convicted of CP crimes?

[iamzack]

Nope.

[da1edwin]

In that case, it should be illegal for a 14-year-old to take a sexual self-portrait...?

The consensus I've seen so far in this thread is that cartoon or simulated CP shouldn't be prosecuted the way real CP is. Given that this is not the case in our current laws, though, I'd like to see an argument supporting the current illegal status of simulated CP.

[iamzack]

It's too ridiculous a stance.

[Flaser]

photos of child porn Vs Hentai and other cartoon "child" porn

child porn - no arguments of it being wrong because of the harm to the childs psychological development and the conditions the child could be subjected to.  on another element there is the behaviors it could encourage in the viewer.

Cartoons - I put the speech marks around the word child at the start because as with anything based on the artists imagination only the artist knows what was intend the viewer can only interpret the image, now in this being "Not Real" removes the current harm from the child but leaves the issue of behavior it could encourage and if that is a crime, is it an incitement to commit a crime? personally i think no unless there is proof to deliberately incite.

Here's a fun-fact:

EDIT: DAMN! I can't believe how far spread and hysterical this issue is. I've been surfing for 30 minutes and still couldn't find child welfare statistics that compare the various countries.

What I knew (can't confirm) is that Japan, the greatest (maybe only) producer of lolicon cartoon and animaiton has a lower rate of child-abuse than such "enlightened" countries like the liberal Australia, the pieous Italy or the bastion of hope that is the USA.

BTW: It IS ridiculous that in Most countries I could date a girl as young as 16 (14 in Hungary), but in the USA I'd be put in jail for being a pedophile and put on the sex offender list. The best part? This was done to a 17 year old kid for dating a 15 year old. Granted the age of consent in most states is also 16, but God help you if she were only 15 and you didn't know! ...and in a handful of states she has to be over 18.

I mean I'm fine with protecting children, but I don't want to ask for ID if I'm trying to hook up with a girl over a pair of drinks in the bar. Can you tell the difference between a 15 year old and a 16 year old? ...or an 18 year old? Nowadays it's not that easy since girls are well developed at an early age and put on make up and generally act hypersexualized.

[Thaeris]

Well, first of all, you theoretically shouldn't run into anyone younger than 21 in a bar if you're in the US.

Kids also "date" each other at ages younger than 18 too (which is obvious)... what they actually do while dating is another issue, and I think you've hit on that adequately, Flaser (the 17-year-old dating a 15-year-old situations sounds like it was blown out of proportions to me). To add to your query, though, I do not feel reverting to "Romeo and Juliet" romanticism should be an option in the modern age. Someone who's 14-16 should probably not be involved in intimate sexual activity. That IS a question of moral and social ethics, though, and adapts with the culture as a whole. "Dat's it."

I've never actually heard of cases where an individual was charged for distributing images of themselves. Granted, you should question their motives, but placing charges on those individuals seems rather "grey" in nature. I don't approve of the actions of those children, but they simultaneously are children. I'm not quite sure there's an ideal ruling for such things.

The "suggestive artwork" issue is a new one to me as well. Despite its questionable morals (and the morals of those who employ it), it is art. As far as US rulings go, that should be protected via the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. AND AS SUCH, it shouldn't be a problem. If you state that such might be an "enabler for foul acts," then I combat that with this: How many people got riled up over a book and did something (not necessarily bad) because of it? The principle is thus this: If you're sick, you're sick. If you're nuts, you're nuts. If you're that messed up to act on things such as literature, games, or in this case, animation, then you're going to cause a problem regardless. Now, that's not to say you might take in poor ethos from the smut you're viewing, but that is an issue of personal morals. If you have any decency, you probably won't find yourself using that media anyway. In conclusion, it should have no legal restrictions apart from whatever is used to regulate ratings for viewers/buyers, etc.

If you're producing or supporting the CP industry, then I have no qualms about beating you down with the book.  :ma-Thaeris

[BloodEagle]

I've never actually heard of cases where an individual was charged for distributing images of themselves. Granted, you should question their motives, but placing charges on those individuals seems rather "grey" in nature. I don't approve of the actions of those children, but they simultaneously are children. I'm not quite sure there's an ideal ruling for such things.

As far as the law is concerned, it's trafficking in CP. There was a case (see: Snail's post) where a teenage girl and her teenage boyfriend, whom she sent a picture of herself to, were tried and found guilty (IIRC) of trafficking in CP.

I'd look up the article (or the case) for you, but there's no way in Hell that I'm putting anything like that through a search engine.

The "suggestive artwork" issue is a new one to me as well. Despite its questionable morals (and the morals of those who employ it), it is art. As far as US rulings go, that should be protected via the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights.

There's a specific clause in a child protection act (I forget the name, it was linked to in another topic on GenDisc.) that makes such works illegal to create, sell, and/or own. I'd look it up, but there's no way in Hell that I'm putting anything like that through a search engine.

If you're producing or supporting the CP industry, then I have no qualms about beating you down with the book.  :ma-Thaeris

I wasn't aware that there was an entire industry.... And (I would hope that) you're speaking metaphorically about that beating thing, right?

[Bobboau]

there is, it's mostly in eastern Europe, I remember reading an article about it once, they have some surprisingly sophisticated technologies and techniques. but then again the would be in jail now if they didn't.

now, in a slightly out of left field turn, I would like to postulate the following:
loli is more a cartoon fetish than pedophilia.

[Spicious]

Bear in mind that you can actually make the argument that mere possession of child porn is damaging to the child themselves. Once images of their abuse are on the internet the victim no longer knows who possesses images of their abuse. Even if their original abuser is caught and all material destroyed they don't know if some sick bastard might still have them.

I don't see how someone actually possessing it has any bearing on the belief that someone possesses it; unless it's publicised.