Teen sexuality sites caught in the net (Score 1)

The definition of child porn is so slippery that any site/newsgroup where there are images of underage persons could be so defined, even when the people are clothed. If they're considered to be 'posing lewdly' (dancing to a Beyonce number, say) that counts as CP, which includes pix teens take of each other. When I was a teen we took 'lewd' pix of ourselves in photobooths and passed them around - these days teens use phone cams and post pix to mySpace, and indeed some have been arrested for CP for posting 'lewd' pix of themselves and have ended up on the Sex Offender's Register, which is positively Kafkaesque. The problem lies in the central principle of CP, which is that it's not the content of the pic which is at issue but what effect that pic might have in a pedo's mind, which effectively means that what pedos might get turned on by determines what's legal and not. By focussing on intentions rather than consequences CP is effectively a thought crime.

One side-effect (or maybe even primary purpose) of site blocking is that sexual information sites and fora for teens will be caught up in the net. Teens love to talk about sex and sexuality, and are desperate to a) get frank information and b) read other's experiences - the Net is an absolute boon for them. Because CP has such a wide definition, and is based on what a pedo might be turned on by, info and discussion sites will be classed as CP, blocked by ISPs, and the site admins arrested. This would suit many moral conservatives who think that "children" should remain forever innocent, and teens should be shielded from sexuality or penalised if they do actually get up to any 'unpleasantness'. 'For the sake of the children' is just a figleaf for sexual repression, for such moralists, and you can be sure their mucky paws are all over these recent measures.