Children busted for home brewed porn

Post Reply New Topic

I am very skeptical about that claim.

I fail to see how the creation of child porn is any more a crime than creating regular porn if it involves only consenting individuals. It is true that those under-age can not legally give consent, but when no one older than them is present no one is being exploited. In that case, it is merely stupid, and hardly qualifies as a "grave crime". Distributing it is a different matter, of course.

Do you understand why child porn is a crime? It is a crime because the children involved are not old enough to understand the ramifications and therefore fully consent to sex. It was criminalized to protect the children who were involved with it. There is an internal contradiction in charging children with child exploitation. Hopefully the legal system will make some sense of that.

Exactly! It was criminalized to stop this horrible exploitation of children. Charging children with child exploitation is logically inconsistent- and a misuse of the laws. The only way somebody can do this is by deliberately ignoring why it was criminalized in the first place.

I understand exactly why it's a crime. I also understand exactly why it's a crime for the parties involved, no matter their age, to film the acts. That was my point - the age of the children committing the crime of filming the acts does not matter, they still committed a crime.

It matters in respect of cupability. If it is a crime to have sex with or film sexual activities involving X because X lacks the competency to make responsible decisions about sex, then X cannot make competent decisions about whether they have or film sex acts. The only reason it is not legal to have sex with children is because they cannot be expected to make reasonable decisions about sex and should not be held accountable or made to suffer the consequences of any voluntary sexual activities until their brains have developed some more. If they were able to make competent decisions for which they should be held legally accountable, in respect of voluntary sexual acts (or filming them), then it would be fine and dandy to have sex with them and to film it too.

Okay, I don't think either of us fully understand each other here.

What I'm trying to say is, that by the early to middle teenage years, one should, at least, know that it is wrong to go filming other kids (or anyone, for that matter) having sex. They should have an understanding that doing so is a crime. It does not take a fully mature brain to understand that.

True, maybe these kids didn't know any better. I find that hard to believe, as a proper education by that age would have warned them that such actions are wrong (for example, I began sex ed at the age of 9). That doesn't make filming child porn any less of a crime. If the videos are circulated to the point where any sicko pervert can access them, then the damage is done.

I don't know how to make my point any clearer here. I still believe those that filmed the porn should be held responsible. If you don't feel the same, that's fine - you're entitled to your own opinion.

It takes a mature brain to appreciate the consequences. That is why the law against sex with minors exists. It is not because everyone under this age is incapable of learning the fact that they might get pregnant, or get someone pregnant, or that they might get a disease, but because knowing these facts and appreciating these consequences in the way an adult can are two entirely different things.

Sneaking a couple of biscuits from the cupboard is wrong, playing hookie from school is wrong; plenty of things children do are wrong and they know it, and they know better. It is not an issue of whether or not they understand that they are misbehaving as misbehaving is a significant part of what being a child is all about. They are still children and need to be protected from the consequences of their stupid decisions. The whole point of children is that they are not just adults who are shorter and know less. No matter how many facts they know, a child is still a child.


So is it the sick perverts we are protecting here? These children are being prosecuted to prevent sick pervants being hurt by seeing images of them?


They should not be held criminally responsible for voluntary sexual conduct in the absence of a predatory element. In any instance where it is possible, consequences for childhood behaviour should remain within the scope of childhood. Being criminalized and registered a sex offender for life, as a result of non-predatory childhood sexual experimentation is just plain wrong, and the widespread availability and familiarity with video capture devices that has arisen due to recent technological developments, should not change that.

Certainly children should be held responsible for their actions, in a reasonable and appropriate manner. Being grounded for instance springs to mind.

Okay, it's clear that you don't understand me. I won't argue this any further. It's okay for you to have your opinion, I respect that. I just ask that you respect mine.

Except that the filming of sex acts ISNT a crime at any age. There is a whole industry based around the legitimate and legal filming of such activities between adults. Is it so very hard to see the possibility that several people, (underage as they might be) might not think that filming themselves would be such a huge issue given the HUGE amount of similar film available?

For that matter "proper education" about sex doesn't even mention porn films. School sex ed simply doesnt bang on and on about it being illegal to film sex, and open discussion WITH people who are underage about the making and distribution of porn films isn't exactly common. Some people would even say that trying to talk about pornos with children is sick/wrong/illegal/perverse, and I would wager that most parents/teachers havent thought of broaching the subject with the children they know. Subsequently, why is everyone assuming that kids know it is wrong to film each other fornicating, especially when one of the most common things in the media/on the net is people consensually filming each other fornicating? Likewise, most people (rightly so) consider their own body to be their own property and as such believe that what they do with that body is their own concern. Such is the nature of consent. Its not particularly odd that children who are sexually mature (or close to it) would think it normal and fair to be allowed to exercise control over their own bodily activities in such a fashion.

Yes, what these kids did was foolish and misguided, but it was also consensual and a logical response to exposure to adult pornography. "If they can do it, why cant we? Its MY body."

Criminalising these children serves no meaningful purpose except to brand them as something they are not.

I think the actions of the school and court were reasonable.

The school, it was between students, and they were told not to.

The court awarded civil damages, for violation of privacy.

Only in America can a twelve year old girl be convicted of a felony, and lifetime registration as a sex offender for sending a picture of herself in the mirror by cell phone.

By these standards, the group showers in school after gym are major crime, where each is exposed to all, all to each, and gym teachers watch.

Parents have been arrested in America for taking pictures of their child in the bathtub.

Generations of Americans have been photographed naked on a bearskin, or on the potty, at less than a year old, and the contents of the family album are now felony possession of child pornography.

Children do have sex, and not by accident, it is nothing new, and sex education is to teach them to protect themselves. We are not giving out condoms to be used after you turn eighteen. They now come in small, and extra small.

Cherubs have been running naked for a long time. Simi nude children are not a danger to the world.

Nude children are not a danger to the world, the laws were supposed to be about pornography, sexual acts.

Now some would like to see them be used to force children to dress in the closet, wear clothes while bathing, and no one under eighteen could ever have sex. I think these are the same people who say sex is only allowed after church marriage. Then only to produce children, and never to be enjoyed.

Now we have thousands of police who watch porn all day to see if they can spot someone under eighteen, and who post on chat rooms that they are a thirteen year old girl that is tired of doing it herself ten times a day, and is looking for someone to play with. They also have some real hot kiddie video they will send for free, and how do you think they know what is on people's computers? They also pose as mothers who think sex should be free, but need money, and have an eight year old daughter for rent.

The intent of a law, and the results, often differ vastly.

Child abuse is now almost standard in divorce, and in general has as much evidence as a claim of witchcraft used to. The results are the same. Giving your child a bath is now a serious crime. Changing diapers is a crime.

As for the kids in these articles, perhaps taking their cell phones, at least not giving them one with a camera? They were given a toy, they played with it. They documented their world, where children do have sex in school, with people watching, it has been going on for generations.

Children also get together after school in groups, taking turns having sex and watching.

It is legal, why we have sex education, and has been going on since behind the barn, in the hay loft, down skinny dipping at the creek, with the founding fathers as children.

Technology should be discussed in sex ed, and the right to privacy.