@matrix If this is highschool this video might be illegal...
@sjw
Fuck. I didn't realize that.
@matrix Really depends on if the dude is 17 or 18 in that case
@sjw Yeah, I agree
@sjw @matrix it's not law but intent's also discarded in cases like the freakout over pedo timestamps in Youtube children's videos. The videos themselves were like this, completely tame not not intending to be anything else, but "what if a pedo likes this part of it for a perverse reason?!" was enough.
And in law there's already crazy stuff like girls getting slapped with child sex offenses for sending nudes to legal boyfriends. For many reasons I can entirely see "what if a pedo likes it?!" becoming the standard.
And in law there's already crazy stuff like girls getting slapped with child sex offenses for sending nudes to legal boyfriends. For many reasons I can entirely see "what if a pedo likes it?!" becoming the standard.
@apropos @matrix In the YouTube case the law and courts weren't involved
In the nudes case it's that they were creating pornographic material of a minor with the intent of sexual gratification.
The latter case is particularly interesting because the fact that they were underage means legally they couldn't consent to the photos they took themselves which for one doesn't make a whole lot of sense. But technically they were manufacturing child porn by taking erotic photos of themselves and then distributing it by sending it to their boyfriend.
Really, the law needs to be revamped in that department. I really don't know what the right answer is tho.
In the nudes case it's that they were creating pornographic material of a minor with the intent of sexual gratification.
The latter case is particularly interesting because the fact that they were underage means legally they couldn't consent to the photos they took themselves which for one doesn't make a whole lot of sense. But technically they were manufacturing child porn by taking erotic photos of themselves and then distributing it by sending it to their boyfriend.
Really, the law needs to be revamped in that department. I really don't know what the right answer is tho.
@sjw @matrix the answer we're going to get is slightly dodgy black letters of the law and generally reasonable outcomes through the operation of the legal system, because any attempt at perfect law would get exploited. If it were legal for children to send nudes to other children, then children would be groomed into sending nudes to children on monitored networks, etc. If it were legal for videos to have naked children if it's in a non-sexual context, then such videos will be made with the secret purpose of helping others to chop it up to to make a sexual video out of it.
Out of everything rotting in the US, the court system is not that bad. They tend not to get fooled by CP 'researchers' and I bet most people posting a zoom video like this one won't get screwed. There's a risk, but you can also go to jail for a crime you had nothing to do with at all.
But, "what if a pedo likes it?!" is a really bad test and I hope that doesn't get more popular because pretty soon it would be illegal to have Yellow Fever.
Out of everything rotting in the US, the court system is not that bad. They tend not to get fooled by CP 'researchers' and I bet most people posting a zoom video like this one won't get screwed. There's a risk, but you can also go to jail for a crime you had nothing to do with at all.
But, "what if a pedo likes it?!" is a really bad test and I hope that doesn't get more popular because pretty soon it would be illegal to have Yellow Fever.
The argument could be made that even if he is 17 and it does technically contain sexual content it's not child porn because the intent isn't for sexual gratification but rather comedy instead. It'd actually be pretty easy to argue that as well.
I remember back in the day America's Funniest Home Videos aired a clip of a little boy (probably around 3 years old) running out of the bathroom fully naked clenching a towel in his butt cheeks and screening. I'm sure they blurred the genitals and buttcrack for FCC regulations but even then it was still a naked kid on TV.
There isn't any question as to its intent tho. Just a family video (no sexual intent) and it was funny so presented as comedy to the general public.
It's generally more about the internet when it comes to more abstract concepts in law.