This thread was created in a response to the de facto distinction between "real child porn", as it was called by Darat, (or if want, child sexual abuse images/videos/etc) and images and videos that are still covered by the same piece of legislation and are sometimes refereed to as "jailbait". Due to the way many child pornography laws are worded they usually not only criminalize the production, distribution and even mere possession or even just observing pornographic images/videos depicting young children but also those depicting teenage youths, including those over the so called "age of consent", but possibly even those legally considered adults as well.
For example here's the relevant Swedish law about the criteria for being a "child" in "child pornography":
What one can determine from this is that:
The main reason for this wording is to ease the burden of proof on the side of the prosecution to prove that someone is a "child" because the accused could obviously claim that they are really not children but just petite adults. In fact such a defense thus does not work even if they are petite adults
My issue is that it seems completely unjustified to have a blanket ban against producing, distributing, possessing and even just viewing porn that explicitly depicts teenagers whom are judged old and mature enough to have sex with just about anyone, according to the political authorities that is.
Can anyone give good arguments why any or all of these actions should be illegal:
When a teenager willingly posts pornographic pictures or videos of themselves or take part in/host a live cam show online whether it's in search of praise and confidence boosting responses, because they want to find someone who are interested in them or perhaps just to fuel their exhibitionism? What if someone looks and/or saves them, should that be illegal?
If one can be in relationship with a 15, 16 or 17 year old boy or girl and have as much sex as one could possible want together why should it be, if only in principle, a crime for them to make pornographic pictures or videos of themselves? Are the potential consequences of that behavior just too aggravating or is it by itself just too likely to be abusive or otherwise undesirable?
Of course in practice, at least in my country, the likelihood of anyone being given anything but a pointless "slap-on-the-wrist" sentence for any of these behaviors is really unlikely unless there are aggravating circumstances involved such as prostitution, an abusive/coercive/incestuous/etc relationship or because it was done on a large scale and/or for monetary gain. If anything the social consequences are likely to be much worse as people mistakenly assume one were cough with images of 11 or 8 year old children. and one have to correct people. Thankfully the Swedish government doesn't enforce some legal form of ostracism against people who commit sex crimes (yet).
What i want to hear is rational and reasonable arguments, not the standard platitudes or vague "think of the children" statements. I get that people want to be protective but at some point one starts to become overly protective and outright callous.
For example here's the relevant Swedish law about the criteria for being a "child" in "child pornography":
Quote:
A child is a person whose pubertal development is not complete or are under eighteen years. If pubertal development is complete, the responsibility for the offense under the first paragraph 2-5 shall only be imposed if the image and the circumstances surrounding it make it clear that the depicted person is under eighteen years. |
What one can determine from this is that:
- Pornographic images of legal adults can be deemed to be illegal if their pubertal development is not complete. As far as i know some variation of the Tanner scale is used to make such a determination.
- Pornographic images of minors under the age of 18 can be perfectly legal to posses, distribute and even produce (as determined by the Swedish supreme court case NJA 2005 s. 80) as long as they look post-pubescent and aren't otherwise identified as being under 18.
- The "child" doesn't have to be real person in any sense of the word. Drawings and cartoons are of completely fictional "children" are consequently covered by this law, although the supreme court recently determined that they are only illegal if they are "realistic enough". No one, probably not even the supreme court, has any idea where that line is drawn.
The main reason for this wording is to ease the burden of proof on the side of the prosecution to prove that someone is a "child" because the accused could obviously claim that they are really not children but just petite adults. In fact such a defense thus does not work even if they are petite adults
My issue is that it seems completely unjustified to have a blanket ban against producing, distributing, possessing and even just viewing porn that explicitly depicts teenagers whom are judged old and mature enough to have sex with just about anyone, according to the political authorities that is.
Can anyone give good arguments why any or all of these actions should be illegal:
When a teenager willingly posts pornographic pictures or videos of themselves or take part in/host a live cam show online whether it's in search of praise and confidence boosting responses, because they want to find someone who are interested in them or perhaps just to fuel their exhibitionism? What if someone looks and/or saves them, should that be illegal?
If one can be in relationship with a 15, 16 or 17 year old boy or girl and have as much sex as one could possible want together why should it be, if only in principle, a crime for them to make pornographic pictures or videos of themselves? Are the potential consequences of that behavior just too aggravating or is it by itself just too likely to be abusive or otherwise undesirable?
Of course in practice, at least in my country, the likelihood of anyone being given anything but a pointless "slap-on-the-wrist" sentence for any of these behaviors is really unlikely unless there are aggravating circumstances involved such as prostitution, an abusive/coercive/incestuous/etc relationship or because it was done on a large scale and/or for monetary gain. If anything the social consequences are likely to be much worse as people mistakenly assume one were cough with images of 11 or 8 year old children. and one have to correct people. Thankfully the Swedish government doesn't enforce some legal form of ostracism against people who commit sex crimes (yet).
What i want to hear is rational and reasonable arguments, not the standard platitudes or vague "think of the children" statements. I get that people want to be protective but at some point one starts to become overly protective and outright callous.
via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/14ScCjJ
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire