Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /home/web/public_html/bb/showpost.php on line 215

Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /home/web/public_html/bb/showpost.php on line 220
CRUISING for SEX - View Single Post - Child Pornography Legal Issues
View Single Post
  #4  
Old 2nd March 2001, 11:01 AM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a

I agree, Flawoofer, that can be a very gray area sometimes:

Quote:

...But I still don't know exactly what constitutes child porn.... Is it just nudity, or do they have to be engaged in sex...? Or, is it just about an erection? And, is opening a message with an attached pic that automatically open the same as "downloading?"
Unfortunately, downloading is downloading, whether a person opens an attachment online or offline from a message or letter. In order to open an attachment, it had to be downloaded first! But the question of what is child porn is, in my opinion, sometimes tricky. Let's say Mom and Dad notices Little Junior sitting on floor in nothing but his birthday suit and eating out of Fido's food can. They grab a camera and take a picture of this historic event! They develop the film or store the file to a folder in their computer. Of course, this is not a "pornographic" shot, even if Junior's dick and balls were showing clear as day! If the parents had taken a shot of Junior riding his little brother Tim, that could be considered "pornography" because the two were shown performing a sexual act. It doesn't matter if the parents had innocently taken the picture, they could be held liable.... I'm no legal expert, but I do believe that we have to be careful when considering such incidents. About erections: I don't think we can always consider all pictures of boys' erections "pornographic." Again, using our model parents as examples, Junior and Tim are taking a bath and Dad decides to take a picture of them both in the tub washing each other. For some reason, Dad's picture captured both boys' erections. This is a gray area...if neither boy is in a position to give any impression of sex, then it's not "pornographic." Having an erection will not instantly qualify any picture as "pornography," especially if sexual intent was not at the core of the picture. And finally, nudity itself does NOT constitute pornography. But anytime we deal with images of children, we need to take extra time to think about how we photograph or picture them.... Ordinary everyday shots of children and young people can be both inspirational and uplifting, if we all take the time to shoot them in "appropriate" settings!

My comments are only used here as my subjective answers to your questions concerning "child pornography." I have no interest in children or anyone under legal age, I am very much into other men! I hope that I have been of some help....



[This message has been edited by blackguy469 (edited March 03, 2001).]