I can see it both ways, but officially you can’t be convicted on your intentions - which is a good job, given that prosecutors can assign you whatever fits their agenda at any particular time. How do you prove that someone had deleterious motives; or that they did not?
The problem, on the other hand, is that motives are sometimes pretty obvious. The fact is though, that the law is there for protection, and if no minors have been involved, no law has been broken.
Brian Dalton. An Ohio appeals court overturned his conviction, and the case was sent back to trial for the First Amendment issues. Charges against Dalton were later dismissed.
I d understand the protection of minors angle. But the OP was concerned about pics found on the hard drive. And then it’s not intent, it’s fact. And I can’t wrap my head around the fact that it’s illegal to have a pic of Lords, while legal to have a pic of a nude (18 y.o.) who looks like 12. Looking just at what is portrayed, I’d say that Lords is not child pornography, even though she was 15 at the time, while the girl who’s of age, and looks like 12, is child pornography. That those kind of pics are circulating, legally, on the net feeds the habit of the pedophiles, IMO.
Anyway, this might be more suited for GD.
(hijack)
Actually, Wal-Mart will not develop photos with any nudity in them. Someone I know took some nude self portraits for an intro photography class assignment and Wal-Mart refused to give him prints of the shots with visible naughty bits. He didn’t know until he opened the envelope at home - they left a boilerplate note. Humorously, they did develop prints of him standing sideways, wearing a glove (not on his hand). I can imagine a Wal-Mart employee flipping through the prints, “Hmm, towel hanging from penis… acceptable. Naked bottom… unacceptable.”
Precisely. You’re punished for your actions, not for mere intent. And rightly so. Anything else would be thought police.
Besides, the law exist to protect kids. Not to punish people who have ideas you don’t like. Even highly unpopular ideas.
First, I understand that Lords starred in porn movies, so I assume that it went well beyond mere nude pictures.
Honestly, I’m not sure why you’re confused. The laws against child pornography, once again, are intended to protect minors. Lords was legally a child, the 18 yo is legally an adult and doesn’t need protection. The motivation of the person looking at both pictures is completely irrelevant.
Think about it : watching a porn movie involving a well formed minor, you’re watching at an actual teen, who might be mature, or might have the mindset of your 13 yo daughter, despite her appearance, engaged in various weird sex acts with a bunch of men to satisfy your prurient interest. What matters isn’t your attraction to kids or lack thereof, nor the physical appearance of the child, but the fact that she is a child, mentally (or at least is legally assumed to be so).
So, you’re actually enjoying seeing a young immature teen who is, say, giving blowjobs to half a dozen adult men, and funding the industry providing you with this “entertainment”. Remove the large breasts that she happens to have developed early, and it’s just another 15 or 14 yo. Do you now see why this is much more wrong (even from a purely moral, not legal, point of view) than a pedophile enjoying watching an adult who just happens to look younger?
It might be intended to appeal to the prurient interest of pedophile, but its’ not child porn as long as no child is involved.
Let’s push it a little further. If we assume that owning a picture of said adult girl who looks like a 12 yo is should be punished in the same way owning actual child porn is, then having sex with this girl should also be punished as harshly as having sex with a minor. Do you see the problem, here? Similarily, having sex with a well endowed 12 yo shouldn’t be punished. See the problem, again?
The law, once again, is intended to punish people preying on kids. Not to punish people who have fantasies you dislike and who don’t harm anybody.
Most definitely. And anyway, there has been a number of threads on this topic in GD.
However, what would you want to ban/punish exactly? Once again : parents taking pictures of their naked kids? Sex-ed books? Art photography? Documentaries about some amazonian tribe? Naturist resort ads? Medical books?
And where do you stop? We can assume a picture of a nearly naked kid would also “feed the habbit” of pedophiles. So, should pictures of children in swinmsuit be banned to? Of children wearing shorts? Teenagers wearing a short skirt?Eventually, should all pictures of children be banned if they aren’t wearing a burqa?