Legal Child Porn Loophole - Disgusting Manipulation of the Law!

reply to post by enament


You are right also, those parents are !@#$'n crazy!

Some of those girls look 21 out of context.

This is an ad BMW used that was highly scrutinized for the girls age and suggestiveness of the photo.

If the images are not evidence of child abuse, then they are not child pornography, plain and simple. I am not suggesting that such images can't be graphic and explicit though, but illegal? No, they are not. Neither are depictions, drawings, models, or computer renderings. When you begin legislating such things, it becomes a slippery slope.


Edit: well, it appears on further reading, such things are illegal federally. I gotta say...no victim, no crime...they are in the wrong here.

Really? You're getting mad because 18 year olds, the legal age for women to do what they want to do, are seemed to be aged lower than 18 so that some sicko gets off on this? What about regular movies where a 18 year old is told to play a 14 year old in a tv show that is ment for all audiences?

Man you really need to aim your anger elsewhere or return wherever you saw this and say it reminds you of 14 year olds. You might even get a refund.

Originally posted by snowen20

Or Nudist websites where children of all ages are portrayed in photography. Are you telling me that it's ok to post nude photos of children as long as they are a part of a nudist group? Ridiculous, I suspect that such websites as those and even groups themselves may be a means for pedophiles to supply themselves with their addiction.

I am a life long nudist so i ask you this question.

Because you are not a nudist you want to take away there rights because of pedophiles.?????

Pedophiles want the same type posed photos found on adult hard core porn site.
The X rated type that depicts children in sexual situations instead of adults.

Though some pedophiles can be aroused by a mere swimsuit photo. And may collect them does that mean we should ban all swimsuit photos of children.

In the US Many of the photos of kids in nudist resorts date from years ago when everyone simply wasn't as aware of the dangers sexual predators pose to our children and such photos were openly published in nudist magazines.
Most US nudist camps do not allow photography anymore and will have anyone that posts photos on the Internet without permission from there camps arrested.

In foreign countries like some in Europe Russia and others nudity is common and nothing is thought about these photos.
This leads to some people in some foreign countries trying to sell these photos for and to pedophiles.
These are not nudist doing the selling but pedophiles or criminal groups trying to make money.mostly (russian mafia?)

It is clear that being dressed has not kept children safe. Those who prey on children are attracted to any place where children can be found.

Nude images of children are not the problem. Pedophiles get arousal from any images of children. They are aroused even by what is clinically called “neutral” imagery. However, even if we managed to get rid all images of children (dressed or not) we would not reduce the number of pedophiles. The disease would still exist and they would find other ways to fulfill their desires.

Originally posted by SawneyBean
These people have desires, and currently we have no way to change that. Perhaps in future we'll be able to "cure" paedophilia, but right now we can't.

Everyone has urges, no matter what their sexual preference, so if they're going to watch porn, it's better that they watch fake CP than real CP.

There is a cure for paedophilia.
It's called a dirt nap.

reply to post by AnteBellum


So what exactly is the problem here...what is the definition of a child? A person that looks young, or a person that is mentally young? Is child porn wrong because the people having sex LOOK young, or is it because they ARE young and are that makes them easily exploitable? You people would label someone as sick simply because they have sex with a person that LOOKS young? I put it forward that society as a whole suffers from this sickness by sexually exploiting young children pop-stars while the whole world watches them run around in skimpy little outfits, and the view count sky rockets.

Originally posted by AnteBellum
reply to post by JohnPhoenix

 

There is more to the law I just copied a portion.

I believe what you are talking about is in the next section of the law.
See my link to this.

Well here is the next section of that law. I've read this whole page. No where in there does it suggest naked pictures of children are illegal in and of themselves, but Only if they are depicted in sexually suggestive poses or intercourse.

This means you can have all the naked pictures of children you want on your pc or even hanging on you walls at home and nope.. that's not illegal. You can pass these pictures out to anyone you like and nope, that's not illegal.

Of course even if the kids are not in sexually suggestive poses or intercourse just their naked bodies themselves can excite pedophiles and cause them to commit crimes - so perhaps it should be illegal, but according to what is written here, it isn't.

Federal law (18 U.S.C. §1466A) also criminalizes knowingly producing, distributing, receiving, or possessing with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture or painting, that

depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and is obscene, or

depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex and such depiction lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

Sexually explicit conduct is defined under federal law (18 U.S.C. §2256) as actual or simulated sexual intercourse (including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex), bestiality, masturbation, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person.

Who Is a Minor?
For purposes of enforcing the federal law (18 U.S.C. §2256), “minor” is defined as a person under the age of 18.

Is Child Pornography a Crime?
Yes, it is a federal crime to knowingly possess, manufacture, distribute, or access with intent to view child pornography (18 U.S.C. §2252). In addition, all 50 states and the District of Columbia have laws criminalizing the possession, manufacture, and distribution of child pornography. As a result, a person who violates these laws may face federal and/or state charges.

Where Is Child Pornography Predominantly Found?
Child pornography exists in multiple formats including print media, videotape, film, CD-ROM, or DVD. It is transmitted on various platforms within the Internet including newsgroups, Internet Relay Chat (chatrooms), Instant Message, File Transfer Protocol, e-mail, websites, and peer-to-peer technology.

What Motivates People Who Possess Child Pornography?
Limited research about the motivations of people who possess child pornography suggests that child pornography possessors are a diverse group, including people who are

sexually interested in prepubescent children or young adolescents, who use child pornography for sexual fantasy and gratification

sexually “indiscriminate,” meaning they are constantly looking for new and different sexual stimuli

sexually curious, downloading a few images to satisfy that curiosity

interested in profiting financially by selling images or setting up web sites requiring payment for access2

Who Possesses Child Pornography?
It is difficult to describe a “typical” child pornography possessor because there is not just one type of person who commits this crime.

In a study of 1,713 people arrested for the possession of child pornography in a 1-year period, the possessors ran the gamut in terms of income, education level, marital status, and age. Virtually all of those who were arrested were men, 91% were white, and most were unmarried at the time of their crime, either because they had never married (41%) or because they were separated, divorced, or widowed (21%).3

Forty percent (40%) of those arrested were “dual offenders,” who sexually victimized children and possessed child pornography, with both crimes discovered in the same investigation. An additional 15% were dual offenders who attempted to sexually victimize children by soliciting undercover investigators who posed online as minors.4

Who Produces Child Pornography?
Based on information provided by law enforcement to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children's Child Victim Identification Program, more than half of the child victims were abused by someone who had legitimate access to them such as parents, other relatives, neighborhood/family friends, babysitters, and coaches.

What is the Nature of These Images?
The content in these illegal images varies from exposure of genitalia to graphic sexual abuse, such as penetration by objects, anal penetration, and bestiality.

Of the child pornography victims identified by law enforcement, 42% appear to be pubescent, 52% appear to be prepubescent, and 6% appear to be infants or toddlers.

What Are the Effects of Child Pornography on the Child Victim?
It is important to realize that these images are crime scene photos – they are a permanent record of the abuse of a child. The lives of the children featured in these illegal images and videos are forever altered.

Once these images are on the Internet, they are irretrievable and can continue to circulate forever. The child is revictimized as the images are viewed again and again.

Source: www.missingkids.com...

Originally posted by FrancoUn-American
If no law has been broken, and no child has been harmed boohoo cry elsewhere the world has real children to protect.

It is these child pornographies which cause real children to get sexually abused. Westerners go all the way to Thailand, Vietnam and Cambodia to find them.

If we stop feeding their fantasies, and punish them physically rather than the mere imprisonment, there might be some change. The unfortunate problem is, that the West does not want to physically punish people as they deem it inhuman, but let's come back to reality and face the obvious, physical punishment has more chance of success than mental punishment.

100,000 people are raped in America every year, and we have rape porns all across the Internet teaching people how to rape, and making their fantasies more vivid to the extent where they go out and do the actual thing. Sometimes gang rape in front of public.

Mental punishment of isolation and imprisonment hasn't worked, anyone with a conscious can tell you that.

reply to post by AnteBellum


Dude, really? Can we get a mod to change the title. Cuz it is pretty misleading. Why waste your time on something like this? Why not focus on real problems?

Wow the main stream mindwashing has realy stuck its claws into the OP what an interfering busy body.

Originally posted by dalan.
reply to post by FortAnthem

 

Sure, its disgusting and helps to promote pedophelia but, unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be too much they can do about it as long as the "actors" are above 18 years old.

So adult porn helps promote pedophilia? Because adults are children?

If a guy likes watching porn involving girls who look like schoolkids how do you think he'll look at schoolgirls in short dresses, tight pants, bikinis, etc. It's not the birth certificates (which say they're 18) which turn him on. He sees 'schoolgirls", so schoolgirls turn him on. Do you think he'll differentiate between an 18 year-old girl who looks like a 14 year-old or a real 14 year-old? Think hard about that one.

So I agree that adults dressing up like children and doing porn CAN promote pedophilia or at least inappropriate thoughts about children.

reply to post by Lannock


A 14 year old is not a child, a 14 year old is a teenager. Pedophiles are turned on by 6 year olds, not teenagers..... And being turned on by a teenager last time I checked was normal, and not in any way illegal...

The mainstream porn industry doesn't bother me as it is hard for them to get away with anything with some of the more ridiculous laws and restrictions they have to follow.

As long as a person is 18 there shouldn't be a problem.

To say a person with a genetic/aging disorder shouldn't be able to be in porn if they want is insane and discriminatory and against their own personal rights because once you say they can't have sex in film it will ultimately cross over into their personal lives so you'd have the law creating some new outrageous law saying anyone who looks underage can't have sex.

Porn is a healthy outlet for men and yes even women to release sexual steam and explore fantasies that they that they can't explore in the real world.
Yes you have some people who eventually become desensitized to the films and need to move on to the next extreme which would be your predators and rapist but this is really a person to person basis and you can't just lump everyone into it together.

Many people I know enjoy the "school girl look" or other types of role playing that depict aspect of youth but it has nothing to do with children but more so about emotions/desires once experienced that just so happened during that period of their lives and we can now live out in a safe healthy manor.
Many of our sexual desires, fetishes, and fantasies are developed as very young children and this is true for all of us unless you're asexual, or sexually repressed (which make up for your most screwed up and often most dangerous sexual predators) so just because we develop these things at a young age doesn't mean everyone is a pedo it just simply means that most of us separate child like qualities from it and make it age appropriate.

Now what I do have a problem with is that it is completely legal to post naked pictures/use naked pictures of underage females to promote porn sites/post pretty much anywhere on the internet as long as the individual in the picture is not displaying a sex act/posting in a sexual nature it is ok for them to be UNDER the age of 18. Most the time this happens without the female even knowing this is going on, since there is a section on most these sites where you can ask them to remove your photos.
The conduct codes for this are 18 U.S.C section 2256 (2)(A) (i) through (iv).
I read this while..surfing porn on the internet and coming across a website were the girls looked very young about 12-13 I started clicking their terms and conditions and it stated what I said above.
I don't want to post links because I'll surely be perma banned but if for whatever reason you think I'm lying contact me and I'll link to the terms and conditions page.


There are websites that gather user content typically obtained from webcams&social networks also sites like skype guys will meet a young female ask for nude photos then to do things on webcam and then once she does it, the man has the ability to send out and post content and even sell it to websites.
There is a huge market for underage amateur home made photos/videos.
I've seen cases where it has been completely against the girls will, someone will hack her computer or lie to her saying they have her address and threatening the things important to her and then forcing her to do things.
Then to later see the video on porn sites.
So if they can get screen caps, or photos and as long as the girl doesn't look like she's doing anything sexual it's ok to post...?...it's really messed up.


I feel if any spectrum of porn needs to be under attack it needs to be the independently owned websites/image boards that create, share, promote, sell and indulge in true child exploration and porn by either complete disregard for the laws, or like OP states the loop holes that do exist out there. These sites are not held to anywhere near the same standards as mainstream porn and these sites are literally killing the mainstream porn companies as there's so many out there with free content.


So ultimately I do agree with you OP and commend you for your passion but I feel that there are more blatant acts of disregard for the laws/protection of REAL children.

Originally posted by Tinman67
This thread reminds me of the guy that was arrested in Puerto Rico for having child porn and the actress came to court and saved the day.

www.youtube.com...

I knew a women once, she was actually a mental health counselor, she looked like she was about twelve when she was actually in her late twenties. Her husband was always being attacked, verbally and a couple times, for being a child molester.

I have the same problem. My wife is 30, and in the right clothing, she looks maybe 15. You should see the looks when I introduce her as my wife. Then they look hard at me, I am 57 my last birthday. I know what they are thinking. Here is the thing, porn is a part of humanity, it will never go away, or slide into a dark underground. Practically everyone looks at internet porn at least once. My wife has a girlfriend in another State, they amuse themselves my emailing photos of the male member to each other.

That being said, I abhor people who exploit children. Take it from me, you will never see a girl under 18 on a commercial porn website. When my wife and I were owners of a site, we read up on the laws and rules, and saw the release forms with a copy of a picture ID attached. Child predators trade materials over the net, and in the mail. They get the material by exploiting children. Want to stop it? Create a place for anyone convicted of molesting a child, like an Island far removed from society. Transport them there, supply them once in awhile, and let them molest each other.

Originally posted by illuminatitanimulli

Originally posted by SawneyBean
These people have desires, and currently we have no way to change that. Perhaps in future we'll be able to "cure" paedophilia, but right now we can't.

Everyone has urges, no matter what their sexual preference, so if they're going to watch porn, it's better that they watch fake CP than real CP.

There is a cure for paedophilia.
It's called a dirt nap.

I think you'll find that's called murder...and like paedophilia, is also immoral, emotionally wreaking for friends and family, and highly illegal...more so even than the crime of paedophilia.

You seriously propose murdering people because they have a mental illness, which after all is what paedophilia actually is?

How about addicts/alcoholics? Schizophrenics? Retarded people? Should we just murder them all?

so if a minor is defined as a person under 18 years of age, and depictions of minors in sexual acts are illegal.


then does that mean the depiction has to be a reproduction of a real person that really exists and is under the age of 18?


if i draw an obscene stick figure and label her "trina the 12 year old porn star". then technically it isnt a depiction of a "person" of any "age". trina the 12 year old porn star doesnt exist anywhere but on that piece of paper.

now if i drew a picture of your little sister and labeled it as such. it is then a depiction of a "person" as defined by the statute.


is this correct?

Peado's, scum of the earth.

Back on topic it's a bit like getting carded for alcohol, so someone may look young or be undeveloped for their age but still legally able to buy booze. In Uk girls as young as 13 get pregnant buy older guys, if they are physically advanced for their age, who are you to tell them it's illegal for them to have sex; as they are able to do it ,so technically why are they different from adults; should people have to prove their age if they want to have sex?; because there's probably a few guys in prison who wish they checked out the I.D of the girl they thought was 18 but turned out to be 15.

Even if a doctor did an examination of a 18 year old girl and found that she had a developmental delay, she would still be legally an adult and therefore legally able to procreate if she wanted to. Though this law seems to cater more to peadophiles you have to remember that you can't have double standards for people, as this is the precursor to predjudice which most normal people find abhorrent.

I have this female friend who recently passed on who was like 4'8" tall and could easily pass for someone as young as 12. She was 27 when she was taken from us.

That's another way they get around it, use shorter people and shave them bald and use certain lighting angles and guess what, your 21 yr old now looks 13. Put a catholic schoolgirl uniform on them and tell them to higheten their voice and it's done.

As to the BMW ad posted further up this page she has on a low cut, shoulderless and strapless shirt and a pair of pants on and is at least 18. BMW knows better.

reply to post by TheImmaculateD1


You know, I wonder what governs "age looks", I really do. I hit 30 next year, I still get IDed for smokes and at bars I don't frequent, the drinking age here is 19. I have met girls/guys underage that looked more than 30. I always am thankful, after I hit 20, I no longer had the desire to look older than I was.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1

 

You know, I wonder what governs "age looks", I really do. I hit 30 next year, I still get IDed for smokes and at bars I don't frequent, the drinking age here is 19. I have met girls/guys underage that looked more than 30. I always am thankful, after I hit 20, I no longer had the desire to look older than I was.

You would have to be able to prove digital manipulation which is very, very complicated to prove. Unless you know the person directly and can vouch for the age of the person. Beyond that no legal standard nor law exists.