Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment One "rough" way to define porn (Score 1) 306

If more than a few minutes of screen-time of a feature film were similar to a given image or video clip, would that film receive an NC-17 (United States) or equivalent (non-US) rating based on sexual content or sexual content in combination with other content (e.g. sexual violence, etc.).

For a video longer than about an hour, would the video as a whole receive an NC-17 or equivalent rating based on sexual content or sexual content in combination with other content (e.g. sexual violence, etc.)?

If the answer is "yes" then it's almost certainly porn in the legal sense of the word.

If the answer is "no" then it may or may not be "porn" in the legal sense of the word but IMHO it is deserving of "free speech" protection in countries with "free speech" protections as strong as those in the United States.

One modification that would apply in "non porn" sexually suggestive images of minors or which appeared to be minors:

If the actors or characters in the film are believed by the rating agency to be underage (18 in the US) or they appeared to be underage (or the ages were ambiguous), then modify the above to be "if the movie was re-shot so the actors and characters were believed to be of legal age and they appeared to be of legal age" to remove the situation where a given scene would be "rated R" if it had adult actors and characters but "NC-17" if the actors or characters were either minors or their status as adults was not clear.

All of the above applies to live-action shots. It's my understanding that in the United States at least, the Supreme Court has ruled that non-obscene hand-drawn and computer-drawn imagery which does not rely on an actual child being filmed is outside the scope of "child pornography" laws because it is protected as "free speech."

Comment Re:Impossible (Score 1) 306

Judges have already declared that porn is basically undefinable,

I've heard this was true of obscenity, but I've never heard that statement from a judicial source regarding porn.

I'm not saying it isn't a true statement, and I'm not saying judges haven't said it. I'm only saying I haven't heard of a judge saying it.

Comment Re:YOU FAIL IT (Score 1) 306

I didn't click on the link, but based on the domain-name this actually might be marginally on-topic.

+1 on-topic
-infinity flamebait

The question nobody will dare answer here and really nobody here wants to know is does the person who took the photograph get "+5 years - jailbait" or "+ 50 years - much too young to qualify as jailbait". I'm just going to assume "neither" so I can sleep at night.

Comment Re:Exactly - and how do you define underage? (Score 1) 306

The age of consent for porn is 18 throughout the entire United States

You are correct insofar as Federal law is applicable.

A person using a camera which is entirely made in the state they are using it in (and, if it's film, the film is made and developed "in-state" using "made in the state" equipment) then the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution kicks in and the Feds will generally have no criminal jurisdiction.

I say "generally" - if the image is transmitted over wireless means, over "the Internet," or over the telephone the presumption is that the feds have jurisdiction over the transmission, reception, and any copies received by the recipient. But if by some coincidence I lived in the state where Polaroid cameras and film used to be made and I obtained my camera and film from an in-state source, and shot a Polaroid, and gave it to someone else in the same state, and we never used a computer or phone to plan the exchange, it would be purely a matter for state and local prosecution.

Comment Re:What is the point of this? (Score 1) 306

If you'd been abused when you were ten, would you want those pictures online?

That's an interesting question.

If I were molested and photographed at age 10 and I came into possession of the photographs when I was 20 or 30, would I want the right to publish them online? Would I want the right to license the publication rights to others in exchange for mega-bucks? Or would I want to live in a society that says "no, you don't have that right, and the reason why is if we give you and others in your situation that right, it will lead to more child abuse?"

Me, personally, I hope to God that I would be in the last group. But what can I, as a person who generally believes in free speech and (within some limits) American-style capitalism tell those victims of child abuse who, by some means or another, came into possession of previously-unpublished photographs of their own abuse when they were a child and they want to market those images legally without being a hypocrite?

Comment The United States virtually wiped out CP traffic (Score 2) 306

In the early 1980s there were only two practical ways to transfer child porn: "Locally," which meant in person, by local courier, or by a "drop" or similar means, or "non-local" by courier, shipper, or the Post office.

Finding other people to trade the stuff with in a way that the cops wouldn't easily find you was also very difficult.

The US Postal Service inspectors and other police agencies were so effective that by the early 1980s it was said that child porn trading through the mail was virtually wiped out, AND that police were finding virtually zero "new" images.

The advent of the computer scanner, particularly the color scanner, changed all of that. Now people could use computers to send images to each other 1-on-1 or via invite-only bulletin boards and, well, I don't need to go on from there.

I remember the "bulletin board lists" of the 1980s. The "adult" boards were typically marked or in a separate list. I can't help but wonder how many of those had "secret, invite only" areas that held illegal images. If you know, please don't tell me. Unless the answer is "0" I don't want to know.

Comment Making it harder to find HELPS (Score 1) 306

What is the point of automatically removing child porn so it's not searchable. That's not the problem with child porn.

The problem with child porn is real children are being really abused to make it.

Making it "not searchable" doesn't stop that. Arresting the people who are making it does.

Similar statements can be made for most other crimes.

If you make it hard to obtain drugs, only those really determined to get them will go to the effort.

If you make it really hard to rob bank, only those really determined will bother.

If you make it really hard to find child pornography, only those really determined will keep searching, the rest will give up.

Of those who are looking for child porn for a sexual thrill, you've got several categories:

  • Those who will see it once or maybe a few times and won't do it again (the curious, the thrill-seekers).
  • Those who will continue to want it but will not "progress" to child molestation, trading, soliciting the creation of new porn, etc. AND who, if their supply is cut off, will not seek out "local, real-life" sexual outlets involving children or harming others (the "satisfied with just images" users).
  • Those who, if their supply is NOT cut off, will progress to more serious forms of abuse (the "escalating" users).
  • Those who, if their supply IS cut off, will progress to "local, real-life" forms of abusing others (the "substitution" users).
  • Those who, if they cannot find child porn at all, will NOT seek out "local, real-life" sexual outlets involving children or harming others.
  • Those who, if they cannot find child porn at all, WILL seek out "local, real-life" sexual outlets involving children or harming others.

There is also the issue of "perceived demands drives supply" - if those producers who are doing it for revenue or for the thrill of seeing their "hit count" go up have more customers, on the whole the supply of "new" child porn is likely to be higher than if they believe there is little demand for their images. More "new" child porn being distributed in the future pretty much means more actual, real-world abuse in the future.

My very strong hunch is that making it very hard to find child porn will be a net win for children, even if in particular situations you may have significant numbers of children whose dads molest them in person because he can't find his "methodone/child porn."

Arresting the people who are making it does.

I'm all with you but if these people are in a country with weak law enforcement in this area, there's not much that Interpol or *insert child-porn-hating country with good law enforcement here* can do in the short term to put the abuser behind bars.

Comment Only if they don't get deputized (Score 1) 306

If they get their employees deputized or otherwise "blessed" by the powers that be, then it's okay.

You know who else is allowed to see child porn?

Lawmakers and their staff members in the performance of official duties that require looking at it.

According to someone I talked to in Washington a number of years ago, if a Congressperson needs some porn pulled for official use, the staff member he picks to get it for him is usually an older woman who presumably would have no interest in the contents beyond what is needed to verify it is what the Congressperson needs.

Slashdot Top Deals

Nothing recedes like success. -- Walter Winchell