# Unintentional production of child pornography **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [February 20, 2010, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unintentional-production-of-child-pornography/529725 "2010-02-20T02:07:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![psychonaut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/psychonaut/32/4655_2.png) [@psychonaut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psychonaut)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2010, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unintentional-production-of-child-pornography/529725/21 "2010-02-20T22:56:08Z")
> [@md2000](#): > > Nope. A picture of an underage person in any sexual pose is still child porn. You would have to really argue absolutely no intent and never foresaw the chance that you would capture it, and also that you never viewed it. Simple possession is automatic guilty, unless you have a really really good excuse for the judge. As I stated in my original post, what constitutes child porn depends on the jurisdiction. All you are doing is making some absolute proclamations that couldn’t possibly hold in every jurisdiction. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2010, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unintentional-production-of-child-pornography/529725/22 "2010-02-20T23:15:23Z")
> [@psychonaut](#): > > As I stated in my original post, what constitutes child porn depends on the jurisdiction. All you are doing is making some absolute proclamations that couldn’t possibly hold in every jurisdiction. Hmmm… I’d like to see a modern jurisdiction where an underage child in a sexual situation is not considered CP. In Canada, in fact, the situation is stricter than the USA. The guy I mentioned with the videotape was charged under a federal law. He tried to use the excuse that the vendor of the tape advertised it as “legal” and the judge still convicted him. I find it hard to believe that anywhere else, like “filter the country” Australia, has laxer laws. Some European countries where nudist lifestyle is more accepted might allow innocent pictures and need to prove intent - but in North America, it’s possession. OK, IIRC a discussion long ago, the legal age in Holland was 16 not 18 - but that just changes the definition of “underage”. I’m sure you can find precedents where someone got off (?) on a possession charge but they better have a really good explanation, and it better not involve deliberately taking such pictures unless there’s a valid professional reason. In today’s social climate, I seriously doubt too many professionals want to be researching something that involves such pictures; and I bet most institutions would shy away from allowing such activity. So literally, yes you are right. In practical terms - unless you have a really really good excuse it’s Bubba time for you. ---
**Author:** ![AmunRa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@AmunRa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AmunRa)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2010, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unintentional-production-of-child-pornography/529725/23 "2010-02-21T00:11:45Z")
> [@md2000](#): > > Some European countries where nudist lifestyle is more accepted might allow innocent pictures and need to prove intent - but in North America, it’s possession. In the US “innocent” pictures do no constitute child pornography if there is nothing obviously sexual about the pictures and the pictures are not being distributed specifically for the sexual gratification of the recipients. ---
**Author:** ![Serenata67](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/serenata67/32/10646_2.png) [@Serenata67](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Serenata67)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2010, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unintentional-production-of-child-pornography/529725/24 "2010-02-22T13:06:24Z")
> [@md2000](#): > > \ > I find it hard to believe that anywhere else, like “filter the country” Australia, has laxer laws. Some European countries where nudist lifestyle is more accepted might allow innocent pictures and need to prove intent - but in North America, it’s possession. > \ My mom has pictures of my as a naked kid in the bathtub. Does she have child porn? She has a couple of me as a young kid running around without a top on (in my diaper only) and I’m a girl. Is that child porn? I agree with a lot of what you’re saying, but there _are_ some exceptions to the possession = automatic child porn guilt. ---
**Author:** ![Hypnagogic\_Jerk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hypnagogic_jerk/32/4252_2.png) [@Hypnagogic\_Jerk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hypnagogic_Jerk)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2010, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unintentional-production-of-child-pornography/529725/25 "2010-02-22T13:19:49Z")
> [@Serenata67](#): > > My mom has pictures of my as a naked kid in the bathtub. Does she have child porn? She has a couple of me as a young kid running around without a top on (in my diaper only) and I’m a girl. Is that child porn? But that’s not a sexual situation, it’s just you nude. ---
**Author:** ![Serenata67](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/serenata67/32/10646_2.png) [@Serenata67](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Serenata67)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2010, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unintentional-production-of-child-pornography/529725/26 "2010-02-22T13:54:33Z")
But we’re talking about owning “innocent” pictures and if that’s automatically kiddie porn. \*\*md2000 \*\*seems to think so. ---
**Author:** ![Merijeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f05b48/32.png) [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2010, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unintentional-production-of-child-pornography/529725/27 "2010-02-22T14:01:56Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > If you mean opaque tape, yes. Don’t forget the microphone, too. And make damned sure it was opaque tape. Not a post-it note. I was doing work at a school once, and in their ISS room the kids went ahead and put a piece of notebook paper over the dome of a camera - you know, so one of the girls in the class could give blowjobs while the teacher was out of the room. The picture quality was terrible - I thought maybe there was something wrong with the camera - but it was quite clear what was going on in the picture. -Joe ---
**Author:** ![Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tapioca_Dextrin)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2010, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unintentional-production-of-child-pornography/529725/28 "2010-02-22T15:47:11Z")
> [@Serenata67](#): > > But we’re talking about owning “innocent” pictures and if that’s automatically kiddie porn. \*\*md2000 \*\*seems to think so. If you were so inclined, you can buy [Pretty Baby](http://www.amazon.com/Pretty-Baby-Brooke-Shields/dp/B0000AUHQ6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1266853423&sr=8-1) which has a naked 12 year old Brook Shields playing the part of a prostitute. I’m fairly certain it isn’t considered kiddy porn. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2010, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unintentional-production-of-child-pornography/529725/29 "2010-02-22T15:47:42Z")
> [@Serenata67](#): > > But we’re talking about owning “innocent” pictures and if that’s automatically kiddie porn. \*\*md2000 \*\*seems to think so. They might not convit you in the end; but I recall one case in a similar discussion on vigilantes in the photo processing world. The father had his daughter for the weekend, and she had a friend over; they were swimming in the backyard pool and he was taking pictures that day; When he went to take a picture, they mooned him. I guess at a certain age (8-80?) some people think that’s funny. Walmart’s photo processors saw this one picture out of the whole roll and called the cops. he was charged, his child was taken away, family services started and investigation, the mother made sure he never got visitation again, he was put on the sex offender watch list. Never heard the final outcome of the case, but even if he wasn’t convicted - try explaining a “possession of child porn” charge in your next job interview; and some divorces the other parent is not averse to using whatever tactic they can. OTOH, I recall a coworker many years ago who saw nothing wrong with showing pictures of his family vacation, including his 3yo daughter full frontal naked eating an ice cream cone and chocolate ice cream mess melting all down her front. Nobody said anything negative about it, everyone thought it was hilarious. (Side note: never piss off your mother - she has your baby pictures and she’s not afraid to use them…) So the moral of the story is - child porn is not in the eyes of the beholder, it is in the eyes of the prosecutor and the judge. You possess “questionable” pictures at your peril. ---
**Author:** ![alphaboi867](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alphaboi867/32/3898_2.png) [@alphaboi867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alphaboi867)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2010, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unintentional-production-of-child-pornography/529725/30 "2010-02-22T21:07:27Z")
> [@Tapioca\_Dextrin](#): > > If you were so inclined, you can buy [Pretty Baby](http://www.amazon.com/Pretty-Baby-Brooke-Shields/dp/B0000AUHQ6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1266853423&sr=8-1) which has a naked 12 year old Brook Shields playing the part of a prostitute. I’m fairly certain it isn’t considered kiddy porn. Or **Now and Then** which has an entire scene of an underage Devon Sawa & a bunch of even younger boys running around completly naked. That film was made in the mid-90s. ---
**Author:** ![DesertDog](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/desertdog/32/11503_2.png) [@DesertDog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DesertDog)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2010, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unintentional-production-of-child-pornography/529725/31 "2010-02-23T03:18:33Z")
> [@md2000](#): > > Walmart’s photo processors saw this one picture out of the whole roll and called the cops. Must be something about WalMart. A similar thing happened [here](http://www.kidglue.com/2009/09/18/wal-mart-sued-after-false-child-porn-allegations/). It might have been taken out of context but a local radio station ran a snippet of a quote by the WM employee when they broadcast the story, and she sounded like a real tool. ---
**Author:** ![IAmNotSpartacus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/cc9497/32.png) [@IAmNotSpartacus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IAmNotSpartacus)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2010, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unintentional-production-of-child-pornography/529725/32 "2010-02-23T03:49:06Z")
> [@psychonaut](#): > > Whether it’s pornography depends (not just in a semantic sense but also in a legal one, depending on the jurisdiction) of the intent of the photographer, and how that intent is reflected in the photograph. Do you have a cite for this? My understanding is that community standards will dictate whether it is obscene or pornographic or artistic. The photographer’s intent is not really relevant. “Why yes your honor, I absolutely intended to take artful poses of that 40 year old man raping a 15 year old child, I did not intend for that to be seen as pornographic” ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2010, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unintentional-production-of-child-pornography/529725/33 "2010-02-23T14:05:38Z")
> [@IAmNotSpartacus](#): > > Do you have a cite for this? > > My understanding is that community standards will dictate whether it is obscene or pornographic or artistic. The photographer’s intent is not really relevant. > > “Why yes your honor, I absolutely intended to take artful poses of that 40 year old man raping a 15 year old child, I did not intend for that to be seen as pornographic” In fact, there was a case about 15 or 20 years ago in Toronto, where an artist drew naked children in fairly explicit poses. Even before the current “think of the children” hysteria, this brought down charges of obscenity on the artist and the gallery. The outcry from the art community eventually got the charges lifted, but the warning was clear - there was a line the police and prosecutor were not willing to tolerate anyone crossing, even artists. The artist? He was trying to exorcise demons from being molested as a child, and his art was the method. He was a fairly well known local artist, so it’s not like he was someone who just decided to make porn. It was not intended for titillation or exploitation, and that is probably the only reason charges were droppped. We can trade examples and horror stories forever, but I repeat my previous comment as my final word: \*So the moral of the story is - child porn is not in the eyes of the beholder, it is in the eyes of the prosecutor and the judge. You possess “questionable” pictures at your peril. \* [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unintentional-production-of-child-pornography/529725.md?page=1)