Is it a chargeable offense to let your minor child view porn?

[Wee_Bairn]

Yes, I believe it is wrong, but I cannot come up with what specific law or whatever would cover this, or would it just fall under “child endangerment” or something like that? Assuming it is your own child, no molestation involved, and legal porn- just that you aware he looks at porn on the internet but you don’t do anything about it.

[Polycarp]

Hmmm. Interesting question.

Most states have a law on the general idea of “Exposing a Minor to Corrupting Influences.” (Let’s note I’m not making a value judgment on porn there, just making the reasonable presumption that a child-welfare person, on becoming involved, would deem porn as a “corrupting influence.”) In addition, there are very generalized laws about what constitutes child abuse and child neglect that might become relevant.

Now, here are the trick questions:

1. Is the permissive exposure to porn part of a parental scheme for the proper upbringing of the child? E.g., is it their intent to allow him/her exposure to “the seamy side of life” and get parental guidance on its abuse and proper use? Is it ignoring a kid gratifying his/her natural curiousity? Or is it willful neglect of a kid “developing a porn addiction”?

2. What constitutes “porn”? The U.K. child porn laws are so strict and intricate that under certain circumstances a 13-year-old boy viewing a picture of a 14-year-old girl in bra and panties has become a felon under British law. Is it nudity? Erotic poses? Simulated sex acts? Actual sex acts? What kind of sex acts? Do age, and gender relative to viewer, have any bearing on the issue? Would reading a dirty story online constitute porn? Or does it have to be pictures?

My personal inclination, if I were in a position to judge, is to deal with it much as most jurisdictions do with alcohol – if the parent is permitting controlled, appropriate use, that is or may be a part of healthy upbringing of a maturing child. A parent may also want to turn a blind eye to experimentation and the satisfaction of curiosity, planning to intervene if necessary later. If no controls are placed on its use, it becomes neglect, and chargeable.

[Mr.Slant]

Well, if Ron Jeremy is in the work of art in question, I’d say it’s cruelty to children.

[AskNott]

I can see how a parent might use porn as a visual aid in explaining sex. Pausing the video, Pop says, “Now, notice, son, how the vulva and the inner labia become swollen in arousal. The clitoris is up here, inside this little hood.”

Pausing again, "Look closely, and notice he’s wearing a condom. That’s very important.

Pausing again, “Now, this woman seems to like having him put it there, but I want you to know that most women don’t like that.”

Then again, maybe not such a good idea, after all.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

I think it really depends on how we define"porn" and what the circumstances are. This might be one of those things where it’s hard to articulate exactly what crosses the line but where we’d all still know it when we saw it.

[Gfactor]

It is a crime in ALL states to furnish a minor with pornography. In a lot of cases, predators of children would not actually show children pornography, but would leave it out and rely on the natural inquisitiveness of children. They would claim that they did not show these materials to children. In response, most states have passed laws that make it a crime to recklessly or negligently expose children to pornography. As a result, in many states there is strict liability under these laws.

gloria-brame.com: BDSM D/S AND THE LAW: Legal Issues of Concern to Kinky People (site has no naughty pictures but does discuss BDSM–probably not the best idea for work–IMO).

I haven’t verified her claims. The article says she’s a criminal defense lawyer. I did find a few statutes that are consistent with her claims.

[Wee_Bairn]

@Gfactor

gloria-brame.com: BDSM D/S AND THE LAW: Legal Issues of Concern to Kinky People (site has no naughty pictures but does discuss BDSM–probably not the best idea for work–IMO).

I haven’t verified her claims. The article says she’s a criminal defense lawyer. I did find a few statutes that are consistent with her claims.

Cool, but any mention what the specific charge would be?

And any designation between hardcore porn, and say Skinamax after dark?

[Max_Torque]

@Wee Bairn

Cool, but any mention what the specific charge would be?

And any designation between hardcore porn, and say Skinamax after dark?

It’s gonna vary from state to state. In Texas, it’s “Display of Harmful Material to a Minor”.

Interestingly, the way the Texas statute is worded, it appears that the display of “harmful material” is okay if a consenting parent or adult guardian is present, which would seem to indicate that parents can intentionally show such material to their own children. At least, it’s an affirmative defense to prosecution. Doesn’t mean you won’t be prosecuted, it just means you have an excuse.

[Gfactor]

@Wee Bairn

Cool, but any mention what the specific charge would be?

And any designation between hardcore porn, and say Skinamax after dark?

Don’t have time to do much research right now. I found this statute with a Google search.

(14) “Pornographic for minors”, any material or performance is pornographic for minors if the following apply:

(a) The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the material or performance, taken as a whole, has a tendency to cater or appeal to a prurient interest of minors; and

(b) The material or performance depicts or describes nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, or sadomasochistic abuse in a way which is patently offensive to the average person applying contemporary adult community standards with respect to what is suitable for minors; and

(c) The material or performance, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors;

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5730000010.HTM

The charge would be:

Furnishing pornographic materials to minors.

573.040. 1. A person commits the crime of furnishing pornographic material to minors if, knowing its content and character, he or she:

(1) Furnishes any material pornographic for minors, knowing that the person to whom it is furnished is a minor or acting in reckless disregard of the likelihood that such person is a minor; or

(2) Produces, presents, directs or participates in any performance pornographic for minors that is furnished to a minor knowing that any person viewing such performance is a minor or acting in reckless disregard of the likelihood that a minor is viewing the performance; or

(3) Furnishes, produces, presents, directs, participates in any performance or otherwise makes available material that is pornographic for minors via computer, electronic transfer, Internet or computer network if the person made the matter available to a specific individual known by the defendant to be a minor.

2. Furnishing pornographic material to minors is a class A misdemeanor unless the person has pleaded guilty to or has been found guilty of an offense committed at a different time pursuant to this chapter, chapter 566 or chapter 568, RSMo, in which case it is a class D felony.

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5730000040.HTM

This particular statute seems to require more than simply permitting the child to access the web. As the author of the article suggests, some jurisdictions are revising their statutes to cover cases like that.

Here’s a recent case involving the statute: http://www.mydjconnection.com/articles/2007/04/03/news/doc46127469f20ad195808578.txt (not a parent)

[Wee_Bairn]

Ah…the dreaded community standards and artistic merit. So if it were in a morally loose community, and the porno contained a Sesame Street interlude, it would be ok.
Thanks!

[coffeecat]

@Max Torque

Interestingly, the way the Texas statute is worded, it appears that the display of “harmful material” is okay if a consenting parent or adult guardian is present, which would seem to indicate that parents can intentionally show such material to their own children.

So I can only buy my teen a Playboy if I stay in the room while he whacks off to it. Now there’s a well-written law! :rolleyes:

[wendigo1974]

In the UK you would be charged with ‘Corrupting a Minor’
Sounds impressive doesn’t it.

[elbows]

In Canada it would be Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor, I believe.

[JRDelirious]

@coffeecat

So I can only buy my teen a Playboy if I stay in the room while he whacks off to it. Now there’s a well-written law! :rolleyes:

But of course. As your presence would prevent him from whacking off to it, he would have to spend that time learning to appreciate the compositional aesthetics of the photography (“notice the play of light and shadow and how it draws your sight downwards from the navel-ring”) or actually read the fiction and articles (* “Wow, Dad, what an insightful interview with Angela Merkel! She’s WAY more fascinating than Miss February OR Hef’s three girlfriends!”* ).

[RedRosesForMe]

On a related note:

I know a guy who is now a registered sex offender. His charge: distributing pornography to minors. How that happened? Stupidity on the part of the legal system, and an accident on his part.

He was on his second-story porch hanging out with the guys and playing poker with “nudie” cards. Unbeknownst to him, at some point during the night a few cards blew off/were knocked off the porch into the bushes below. The children in the apartment downstairs found them, and when their mother caught them with them she called the cops. They somehow traced the cards back to him, and now he has to live with the stigma of being labelled a sex offender.

I guess his offense would fall under the “recklessly or negligently exposing children to pornography” quote from the defense attorney.

[Rigamarole]

Heh. I read the title of this thread as “Is it a chargeable offense to let your minor view child porn?” - to which the answer is certainly yes, but presents a very different ethical issue… (the creation of the porn would still be just as potentially harmful to the participants, but is it ethically wrong for say, a 16 year old to look at pictures of other 16 year olds having sex?)

[KidKaos]

Gfactor

(14) “Pornographic for minors”, any material or performance is pornographic for minors if the following apply:

(a) The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the material or performance, taken as a whole, has a tendency to cater or appeal to a prurient interest of minors; and

(b) The material or performance depicts or describes nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, or sadomasochistic abuse in a way which is patently offensive to the average person applying contemporary adult community standards with respect to what is suitable for minors; and

(c) The material or performance, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors;

Gfactors quote is a bit disturbing.
The guidelines for pornography to minors is almost word for word identical to the FCC guidelines for obsenity in broadcasting.
It appears that the standard is being held not only for minors after all.
From the FCC website:

Obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution and cannot be broadcast at any time. The Supreme Court has established that, to be obscene, material must meet a three-pronged test:

An average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the material, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;

The material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law; and

The material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/obscene.html

Personal view on this for minors is that these are extremely vague and easily manipulated (for or against) criteria. Not something I would like any law protecting children to be based on.

[Gfactor]

@KidKaos

From the FCC website:

http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/obscene.html

How unoriginal. The FCC pretty clearly plagiarized that standard from the United States Supreme Court: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=413&invol=15#t6 The nerve.

[Elendil_s_Heir]

Here’s the applicable law in Ohio:

*2907.31 Disseminating matter harmful to juveniles.
(A) No person, with knowledge of its character or content, shall recklessly do any of the following:

(1) Directly sell, deliver, furnish, disseminate, provide, exhibit, rent, or present to a juvenile, a group of juveniles, a law enforcement officer posing as a juvenile, or a group of law enforcement officers posing as juveniles any material or performance that is obscene or harmful to juveniles;

(2) Directly offer or agree to sell, deliver, furnish, disseminate, provide, exhibit, rent, or present to a juvenile, a group of juveniles, a law enforcement officer posing as a juvenile, or a group of law enforcement officers posing as juveniles any material or performance that is obscene or harmful to juveniles;

(3) While in the physical proximity of the juvenile or law enforcement officer posing as a juvenile, allow any juvenile or law enforcement officer posing as a juvenile to review or peruse any material or view any live performance that is harmful to juveniles.

(B) The following are affirmative defenses to a charge under this section that involves material or a performance that is harmful to juveniles but not obscene:

(1) The defendant is the parent, guardian, or spouse of the juvenile involved.

(2) The juvenile involved, at the time of the conduct in question, was accompanied by the juvenile’s parent or guardian who, with knowledge of its character, consented to the material or performance being furnished or presented to the juvenile.

(3) The juvenile exhibited to the defendant or to the defendant’s agent or employee a draft card, driver’s license, birth record, marriage license, or other official or apparently official document purporting to show that the juvenile was eighteen years of age or over or married, and the person to whom that document was exhibited did not otherwise have reasonable cause to believe that the juvenile was under the age of eighteen and unmarried.

©(1) It is an affirmative defense to a charge under this section, involving material or a performance that is obscene or harmful to juveniles, that the material or performance was furnished or presented for a bona fide medical, scientific, educational, governmental, judicial, or other proper purpose, by a physician, psychologist, sociologist, scientist, teacher, librarian, clergyman, prosecutor, judge, or other proper person.

(2) Except as provided in division (B)(3) of this section, mistake of age is not a defense to a charge under this section…*

I usually see this charge paired with Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor (also often brought in cases where alcohol is unlawfully provided to teens).