# Reforming child porn laws **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 3, 2015, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reforming-child-porn-laws/729791 "2015-09-03T05:40:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Flyer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/flyer/32/7298_2.png) [@Flyer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flyer)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2015, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reforming-child-porn-laws/729791/1 "2015-09-03T05:40:01Z")
I don’t think that we’ll see common sense applied to this area any time soon, based on current conditions (arresting minors who take naked pictures of themselves, etc). I propose the following: 1. Anything that is completely animated should be legal. If there is no actual child involved, then no foul. 2. The use of very small or young-looking adults to simulate child porn should be legal. (This may already be legal; I don’t know.) But it should be allowed to be sold as “simulated child porn.” 3. The production and possession of porn should be tied to the local age of consent. If a 16-year-old girl is considered by society to be old enough to have sex (something that has a good chance of having life-altering consequences), then she should be considered old enough to be photographed naked. 4. As things currently stand, somebody who is accidentally sent a single child porn image is in very serious trouble. There should be some sort of useful affirmative defense allowed. Perhaps something like sending a text back to the sender, “I didn’t ask for this picture.” 5. Reform the sex offender registry laws, so that only actual predators are required to register. And reform the conditions of release. The current conditions are unrealistic in many cases. ---
**Author:** ![naita](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/naita/32/5862_2.png) [@naita](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/naita)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2015, 9:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reforming-child-porn-laws/729791/2 "2015-09-03T09:21:52Z")
> [@Flyer](#): > > 1. As things currently stand, somebody who is accidentally sent a single child porn image is in very serious trouble. There should be some sort of useful affirmative defense allowed. Perhaps something like sending a text back to the sender, “I didn’t ask for this picture.” Nonsense. I’ve yet to see a single case where “I was accidentally sent child porn” wasn’t accepted as defense when it was actually true. ---
**Author:** ![grude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47774/32.png) [@grude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/grude)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2015, 9:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reforming-child-porn-laws/729791/3 "2015-09-03T09:37:18Z")
> [@Flyer](#): > > 1. Reform the sex offender registry laws, so that only actual predators are required to register. And reform the conditions of release. The current conditions are unrealistic in many cases. Why are so many non sexual crimes and offenses currently sex offender registry required? Public urination does not have a sexual element, skinny dipping doesn’t either(I guess this is indecent exposure?), neither does unlawful detainment and a lot of these I’ve seen over the years in articles about people unfairly on the registry. I recall one about a couples fight where while arguing a man locked his girlfriend in a bedroom or sat in front of the door or something so she couldn’t get at him and when police were called he ended up on the sex offender registry. This is almost nonsensical for a registry that was sold to the public as being for serious offenders like child rapists. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2015, 11:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reforming-child-porn-laws/729791/4 "2015-09-03T11:54:02Z")
> [@Flyer](#): > > 1. The production and possession of porn should be tied to the local age of consent. If a 16-year-old girl is considered by society to be old enough to have sex (something that has a good chance of having life-altering consequences), then she should be considered old enough to be photographed naked. Not in favour of this one - there’s a difference between consenting to an act in private and consenting to performing that act in public, IMO, and as such, the laws and mores regarding how old someone should be to enter into performer contracts should apply - current feeling most places seems to be that that’s 18 across the board, barring rare minor emancipation cases. And while guardians may sign for underage actors etc, I don’t think it’s a good precedent for them to do so when it also involves sex, as they don’t actually get to sign off on that. I’m OK with a legally-emancipated minor over the age of consent being considered old enough, as they’d already have been through some sort of proof-of-maturity testing in the emancipation case, but not an ordinary one. ---
**Author:** ![ElderSign](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eldersign/32/8263_2.png) [@ElderSign](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElderSign)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2015, 11:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reforming-child-porn-laws/729791/5 "2015-09-03T11:56:09Z")
“Public urination does not have a sexual element” I agree with your main point, but I was recently with a young female family member in NYC and we saw a old man whip out his penis and urinate in front of his car door. I felt it was a sexual thing because he exposed himself, and it seemed perverted. Not saying I believe in registries or anything like that, but just saying… ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2015, 12:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reforming-child-porn-laws/729791/6 "2015-09-03T12:17:41Z")
> [@ElderSign](#): > > “Public urination does not have a sexual element” > > I agree with your main point, but I was recently with a young female family member in NYC and we saw a old man whip out his penis and urinate in front of his car door. I felt it was a sexual thing because he exposed himself, and it seemed perverted. Not saying I believe in registries or anything like that, but just saying… That is an eye-of-the-beholder thing. Urinating is not sexual, it a normal biological function. It is a cultural convention that it is generally done in private, but stepping outside that convention is not inherently sexual, it is just rude. Unless he deliberately exposed himself to you or others, incidental viewing of a penis is not a sexual act just because you perceive it that way. If you unknowingly wandered onto a nude beach, would you consider the sunbathing nudists as engaging in sexual acts? ---
**Author:** ![Joey\_P](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/919ad9/32.png) [@Joey\_P](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joey_P)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2015, 12:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reforming-child-porn-laws/729791/7 "2015-09-03T12:21:44Z")
> [@Flyer](#): > > I don’t think that we’ll see common sense applied to this area any time soon, based on current conditions (arresting minors who take naked pictures of themselves, etc). > > I propose the following: > > 1. Anything that is completely animated should be legal. If there is no actual child involved, then no foul. I’ll give you that one > [@](#): > > 1. The use of very small or young-looking adults to simulate child porn should be legal. (This may already be legal; I don’t know.) But it should be allowed to be sold as “simulated child porn.” I’m okay with that one, but I don’t like the ‘simulated child porn’ label. The people that want to see child porn will know what to look for. The people making it will find some kind of label, a dog whistle, to put on the cover, some girl that looks really young. Or they’ll have some specific title. We have already have plenty that describe pretty much exactly how the girls look, but have no basis in reality, this’ll just be another. Look at it this way. Ever see [these](http://www.porkulent.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/HowToMakeCoffee-3-640x426.jpg) at the gas station. That can’t write ‘crack pipes’ on them, but the crack heads know what to look for. Selling a plain glass tube isn’t tube isn’t illegal, but you still can’t advertise it in such a way. > [@](#): > > 1. The production and possession of porn should be tied to the local age of consent. If a 16-year-old girl is considered by society to be old enough to have sex (something that has a good chance of having life-altering consequences), then she should be considered old enough to be photographed naked. I see where you’re going with that, but I think the law is better left to the feds since most porn crosses state lines and it’s mostly made in CA. Are you okay if a few porn companies move their studios to Mexico to film 12 year olds and ship the stuff back up to the states? If it was locally distributed and didn’t cross state lines, that would be different, but we all know that’s not the case. So we might as well work with the US age of majority here. > [@](#): > > 1. As things currently stand, somebody who is accidentally sent a single child porn image is in very serious trouble. There should be some sort of useful affirmative defense allowed. Perhaps something like sending a text back to the sender, “I didn’t ask for this picture.” Someone who gets a single image emailed or texted to them probably isn’t going to get in trouble. If you have a friend emailing/texting/PM’ing you kiddie porn on a regular basis, block them and I’d guess that would be enough to prove you didn’t ask for it. Not send it to your spam folder, block them so if THEY get raided, you can show that you didn’t actually receive any of it. ---
**Author:** ![pkbites](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pkbites/32/204_2.png) [@pkbites](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pkbites)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2015, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reforming-child-porn-laws/729791/8 "2015-09-03T16:47:53Z")
> [@Flyer](#): > > 1. The production and possession of porn should be tied to the local age of consent. If a 16-year-old girl is considered by society to be old enough to have sex (something that has a good chance of having life-altering consequences), then she should be considered old enough to be photographed naked. I can envision an army of pornographers arriving at locations where the age of consent is 16 and offering teenage girls big bucks to perform. Most of the OP seems to come across not as “common sense” but as someone who wants the laws to be lightened up concerning child pornography. At least to me it does. WTF? ---
**Author:** ![Flyer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/flyer/32/7298_2.png) [@Flyer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flyer)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2015, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reforming-child-porn-laws/729791/9 "2015-09-03T17:47:50Z")
Absolutely I want the laws lightened. Much of the current system is so rigid and so draconian that it makes no sense whatsoever. > [@](#): > > ## Under federal law, receiving child pornography, which could mean viewing or downloading a single image, triggers a mandatory minimum sentence of five years. > > Even if you agree that possessing child pornography should be a crime, the current penalty structure is clearly out of whack. Something is seriously wrong with a justice system in which people who look at images of child rape can be punished more severely than people who rape children. [http://townhall.com/columnists/jacobsullum/2014/02/12/looking-vs-touching-is-possession-of-child-pornography-a-crime-worthy-of-years-in-prison-n1793364/page/full](http://townhall.com/columnists/jacobsullum/2014/02/12/looking-vs-touching-is-possession-of-child-pornography-a-crime-worthy-of-years-in-prison-n1793364/page/full) > **[Justice Perverted](https://books.google.com/books?id=ovMJCAAAQBAJ&pg=PT159&lpg=PT159&dq=possession%2Bof%2Bsingle%2Bchild%2Bporn%2Bimage&source=bl&ots=ndjvmTaG7J&sig=w_-3wR9YWrL_L22_-s9PYLuKRsE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CGIQ6AEwCWoVChMIy9DRvLPbxwIVjv-ACh2OEgiX#v=onepage&q&f=false)** > > Over the past quarter century Congress, state legislatures and the courts have radically reshaped America's laws dealing with sex offenders in an effort to reduce the prevalence of sex offenses. Most convicted sex offenders must now register with the... If you truly don’t understand the problem, then ask yourself this–suppose that somebody either accidentally or maliciously sent you a single child porn image. You are now automatically facing a long prison term because of something that **somebody else** did. Does that seem right or moral to you? And once offenders get out of prison, they have to register on the sex offender list–and in many jurisdictions, the list is so restrictive that it literally forces people to be homeless. ---
**Author:** ![Rune](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e68b1a/32.png) [@Rune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rune)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2015, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reforming-child-porn-laws/729791/10 "2015-09-03T18:22:47Z")
> [@Flyer](#): > > 1. The production and possession of porn should be tied to the local age of consent. If a 16-year-old girl is considered by society to be old enough to have sex (something that has a good chance of having life-altering consequences), then she should be considered old enough to be photographed naked. No. Porn is more than just sex. And in any case, it’s just as much to do with what it realistic. You cannot stop 16yo teenagers from having sex with each other even if you tried, you can however stop them from being involved in the professional pornography business (and in prostitution & marriage for that sake). Although, things like this is just silly: > [@](#): > > After a 16-year-old Fayetteville girl made a sexually explicit nude photo of herself for her boyfriend last fall, the Cumberland County Sheriff’s Office concluded that she committed two felony sex crimes against herself and arrested her in February. > > The girl was listed on a warrant as both the adult perpetrator and the minor victim of two counts of sexual exploitation of minor - second-degree exploitation for making her photo and third-degree exploitation for having her photo in her possession. > A conviction could have put the girl in prison and would have required her to register as a sex offender for the rest of her life. [NC Law: Teens who take nude selfie photos face adult sex charges](http://www.fayobserver.com/news/local/nc-law-teens-who-take-nude-selfie-photos-face-adult/article_ce750e51-d9ae-54ac-8141-8bc29571697a.html) ---
**Author:** ![Merneith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/57b2e6/32.png) [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2015, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reforming-child-porn-laws/729791/11 "2015-09-03T18:51:53Z")
> [@ElderSign](#): > > “Public urination does not have a sexual element” > > I agree with your main point, but I was recently with a young female family member in NYC and we saw a old man whip out his penis and urinate in front of his car door. I felt it was a sexual thing because he exposed himself, and it seemed perverted. Not saying I believe in registries or anything like that, but just saying… Yeah, I got no problem with public urinaters being on a watch list somewhere. Yes, it’s a normal biological function. It’s also a health hazard. It’s gross. And, in enough volume, it can ruin the grass or buildings. It’s no different than dog urine or horse urine or cat urine. We put up with it in animals because they don’t have any options.\* The man peeing in front of your young relative, did. Open air toilets and public elimination is a major health hazard in India. There’s no excuse for tolerating it in a modern city. And obviously, the fact that it is also sometimes a sexual behavior, just means that we are not obligated to assume the best. (And yes, before anyone asks, I’m also in favor of public toilets & showers maintained by a city’s health department. The health of a city is a civic responsibility.) ---
**Author:** ![elbows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b3f665/32.png) [@elbows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elbows)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2015, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reforming-child-porn-laws/729791/12 "2015-09-03T18:58:03Z")
Reverse the ‘mandatory’ rules and let the damn judges decide based on the individual cases and you won’t have skinny dippers on the register. That what they’re paid for after all, making nuanced difficult decisions. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2015, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reforming-child-porn-laws/729791/13 "2015-09-03T19:04:12Z")
> [@Flyer](#): > > 1. Anything that is completely animated should be legal. If there is no actual child involved, then no foul. > > 2. The use of very small or young-looking adults to simulate child porn should be legal. (This may already be legal; I don’t know.) But it should be allowed to be sold as “simulated child porn.” IANAL, but I think these two are already legal. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2015, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reforming-child-porn-laws/729791/14 "2015-09-03T19:07:36Z")
I think that ignorance of a person’s age should be a defense. If you didn’t know the age or the other person lied about it, then you shouldn’t be at fault. I don’t like the climate of assuming guilt that it creates. ---
**Author:** ![pkbites](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pkbites/32/204_2.png) [@pkbites](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pkbites)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2015, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reforming-child-porn-laws/729791/15 "2015-09-03T20:56:06Z")
> [@Flyer](#): > > Absolutely I want the laws lightened. Much of the current system is so rigid and so draconian that it makes no sense whatsoever. It makes plenty of sense. Your contention that somewhere there is a mass of people that got screwed by the system because of it’s rigidity concerning child porn is bunk. And I find anyone who has a problem with the strict laws against kiddy porn nothing less than suspect. ---
**Author:** ![Hershele\_Ostropoler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e47c2d/32.png) [@Hershele\_Ostropoler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hershele_Ostropoler)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2015, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reforming-child-porn-laws/729791/16 "2015-09-03T21:44:32Z")
> [@Flyer](#): > > 1. Anything that is completely animated should be legal. If there is no actual child involved, then no foul. > > 2. The use of very small or young-looking adults to simulate child porn should be legal. (This may already be legal; I don’t know.) But it should be allowed to be sold as “simulated child porn.” It should be an affirmative defense, meaning the burden of proof shifts to the accused. It should be on the pornographer to prove that young-looking adults or altered photographs or graphical effects were used, if that’s what they claim, not up to the prosecution to prove they weren’t. I don’t see the purpose of the “simulated” labeling. Actual child pornographers are already breaking the law, I don’t see a need to add “false labeling” when the elements include the elements of CP anyway. It just makes it easier for them to establish reasonable doubt. If that affirmative defense is available, people who are doing that don’t need to label it besides. [QUOTE=Flyer] 4. As things currently stand, somebody who is accidentally sent a single child porn image is in very serious trouble. There should be some sort of useful affirmative defense allowed. Perhaps something like sending a text back to the sender, “I didn’t ask for this picture.” [/QUOTE] I’m not sure what happens to people sent unsolicited pictures, but I expect there’s an out in current law, as **naita** says. [QUOTE=Flyer] 5. Reform the sex offender registry laws, so that only actual predators are required to register. And reform the conditions of release. The current conditions are unrealistic in many cases. [/QUOTE] Better yet, eliminate the registries entirely. If someone is currently a danger, why are they free in the first place? > [@YogSosoth](#): > > I think that ignorance of a person’s age should be a defense. If you didn’t know the age or the other person lied about it, then you shouldn’t be at fault. I don’t like the climate of assuming guilt that it creates. I’m not opposed to laying out a specific and straightforward way for producers to verify a model’s or actress’s age, and letting that be a defense, and then (as long as the verification process isn’t needlessly difficult or complicated) making creating porn with underage performers a strict liability crime. That said, I believe the current law is that the verification is mandatory, which I think is unnecessary\* but which makes failure to verify effectively a regulatory offence, for which strict liability is less unjust. \*Think granny porn; if a site’s selling point is that everyone is over 60, it seems a bit redundant to demand that they have paperwork showing that everyone is over 18 ---
**Author:** ![Hershele\_Ostropoler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e47c2d/32.png) [@Hershele\_Ostropoler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hershele_Ostropoler)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2015, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reforming-child-porn-laws/729791/17 "2015-09-03T21:47:55Z")
> [@pkbites](#): > > And I find anyone who has a problem with the strict laws against kiddy porn nothing less than suspect. Of course the laws should mete out harsh penalties to anyone who exploits children. But I don’t find wanting to not mete out such penalties to people who didn’t exploit children – who, in fact, may have proactively tried to be sure they were not exploiting children – suspect in the least. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2015, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reforming-child-porn-laws/729791/18 "2015-09-03T22:08:27Z")
> [@Hershele\_Ostropoler](#): > > I’m not opposed to laying out a specific and straightforward way for producers to verify a model’s or actress’s age, and letting that be a defense, and then (as long as the verification process isn’t needlessly difficult or complicated) making creating porn with underage performers a strict liability crime. Actually, I was thinking more broadly. If a guy at a college party has sex with a girl who told him she was 18 when in fact she was underage, I don’t think the law should automatically assume that he did or should know. He should be able to mount a defense saying that she told him she was 18 and therefore the accidental underage sex is not illegal. My reason for moving it out of porn and into normal people’s bedroom is because I think this happens a lot more in those situations than in a Traci Lords type where an actress lies to producers. I understand that it may be very hard to prosecute people who have sex with underage kids if this law passes. I don’t care, because I think we’ve experimented enough with erring on the side of guilt and its about time we shifted things back the other way. It SHOULD be difficult for the government to throw people in jail. The burden should not be on you to prove you were deceived. If many more people get away with it, I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing ---
**Author:** ![E-DUB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/e-dub/32/403_2.png) [@E-DUB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-DUB)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2015, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reforming-child-porn-laws/729791/19 "2015-09-03T23:00:07Z")
It does seem inherently absurd to charge someone as an adult for taking pictures of their own juvenile body. Having said that, it is unlikely in the extreme that anything will happen because no politician will let their opponent hang a “soft on kiddie porn” sign on them. ---
**Author:** ![pkbites](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pkbites/32/204_2.png) [@pkbites](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pkbites)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2015, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reforming-child-porn-laws/729791/20 "2015-09-03T23:03:08Z")
> [@Hershele\_Ostropoler](#): > > But I don’t find wanting to not mete out such penalties to people who didn’t exploit children – who, in fact, may have proactively tried to be sure they were not exploiting children – suspect in the least. Not only has the OP not made a case that that is happening at a significant level, the rest of the post does come across as a soft on kiddy porn stance. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reforming-child-porn-laws/729791.md?page=2)