Extremely delicate question but need an honest answer.

[manicmike]

WTF is a legal stolen car?

A stolen car that the owner leaves the title in and the thieves forge a signature to sign it over to them.


Or something.

 

[cgipson1]

I have seen art that involved nude children, that invoked a sense of innocence that was wonderful. The human body (in general) can be very beautiful, and I don't find tasteful (artsy) images objectionable (male, female, or child).... although I strongly object to child porn (death sentence sounds good!), and don't even care for most porn of any sort (why get hot and bothered over something you will never have?).

There is a difference between child porn, and art. Unfortunately... from a legal standpoint, what is porn is up to the discretion of the judge, or a jury. Most nudity laws on record date back to extremely restrictive, religiously based thought... and are really ridiculous in my opinion. We do need laws to protect the innocent from that segment of society that would take advantage of them... But there has to be a logical line somewhere. The trouble is many feelings and thoughts on this subject are not based on logic!

If your friend even signed up for a service that provides supposedly legal images of nude children... that is frightening. Personally I can't imagine a "legitimate" service like that! If the images are art, rather than porn... then I hope he gets an intelligent, unbiased judge... that doesn't go biblical on him.

Would I shoot naked kids? No.. probably not.

 

[EIngerson]

I will put it to you this way. I have been looking at porn on the net since forever, and in all my years I've never accidentally come across anything like that. You don't just stumble upon crap like that, you actively have to search it out. Thus I say he knew what he was getting into and guilty as charged.

To the extent that it was delivered via the paid subscription, yes.

But EVERYONE should be aware that there are trojan horse exploits SPECIFICALLY intended for storing illegal files on other people's computers. Just because a file is on someone's computer does not guaranteed mean they put it there. More information is required before any reasonable guess can be made as to ownership / intent.

But, a trojan horse doesn't trip search engine triggers to govt watch logs. The trojans and bots aren't innitiated by the user and do not make you liable.

 

[BobSaget]

I think the photographer I am referring to is Sally Mann. You can Google her work to see what I am talking about.

Def. Sally Mann. Watched a documentary on her and found out it was her children she was photographing nude. I'm not a father yet, but have trouble understanding why she published and put these pictures on exposition. I do believe her work is art, but she had to realize, though I'm sure unintended, where some of her work would wind up and what it would be used for. I hate to make this accusation, but after watching the film, I felt that there was an element of shock value in it.
If you haven't viewed her landscape work "Deep South" I really recommend you do. She uses old large format camera's with broken lenses. very interesting.

 

[nycphotography]

But, a trojan horse doesn't trip search engine triggers to govt watch logs. The trojans and bots aren't innitiated by the user and do not make you liable.

Right. That would be the "more information" part.

 

[jhodges10]

While still subjective, to say the least, pornography is defined as;

1: the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement

2: material (as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement

3: the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction <the pornography of violence>

Anyone can say that even these definitions are subjective where "eye of the beholder" is concerned. Somewhere there is an artist who took a photograph of a beautiful man or woman nude and called it art only to have someone else look upon that same photograph and became sexually aroused! The very same thing can be said for photographs of fully clothed men and women! There would almost certainly have to be a general consensus that what is viewed does/doesn't elicit such a response then it can be called art/pornography. The next question is who can be nonobjective in making the final determination? I suppose, in this case anyway, a judge or jury.

A sticky wicket, for sure.

The problem with this is that most of us wouldn't be aroused by a photo of a naked child the only people that would are pedophiles. That being said if most men saw a nude photo of a 15 year old girl who had physically matured early but not knowing her age probably would be aroused even though shes not of legal age. I'd think the important part to note here is that if this was a subscription porn site then the intent of the nude children was specifically sexual arousal and therefor illegal. Personally if I saw naked kids on a porn site I'd report it to the authorities. Maybe this guy had the pics accidentally but I'd find that very hard to believe and if he was suspicious of the photos he should have reported them.

 

[Ilovemycam]

RE: Sally Mann...forgot to mention.

1) she was shooting nudes of her own kids. If you or I got the neighbor kids next door and shot the exact same nudes of them...we would be sex offenders in prison.

2) Sally's hubby is a lawyer. (From what I was told.) She would get free, in house legal defense if anything did come of it in court. If it was your or me, we could be out hundreds of thousands $$ in legal expenses and could still end up in prison.

3)...stay away from underage nude pix!

 

[Ilovemycam]

While still subjective, to say the least, pornography is defined as;

1: the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement

2: material (as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement

3: the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction <the pornography of violence>

Anyone can say that even these definitions are subjective where "eye of the beholder" is concerned. Somewhere there is an artist who took a photograph of a beautiful man or woman nude and called it art only to have someone else look upon that same photograph and became sexually aroused! The very same thing can be said for photographs of fully clothed men and women! There would almost certainly have to be a general consensus that what is viewed does/doesn't elicit such a response then it can be called art/pornography. The next question is who can be nonobjective in making the final determination? I suppose, in this case anyway, a judge or jury.

A sticky wicket, for sure.

The problem with this is that most of us wouldn't be aroused by a photo of a naked child the only people that would are pedophiles. That being said if most men saw a nude photo of a 15 year old girl who had physically matured early but not knowing her age probably would be aroused even though shes not of legal age. I'd think the important part to note here is that if this was a subscription porn site then the intent of the nude children was specifically sexual arousal and therefor illegal. Personally if I saw naked kids on a porn site I'd report it to the authorities. Maybe this guy had the pics accidentally but I'd find that very hard to believe and if he was suspicious of the photos he should have reported them.

Well, in times gone by, you could marry a thirteen year old. I saw a girl on a dive boat with huge, luscious breasts and a beautiful body. I asked her is she was married, thinking she was maybe 22. She said she was 15. I thought WOW!

Yes, nature and laws sometimes cross paths that can lead to big problems.

 

[steven_]

There are two topics in this thread, one being the "pornography v art" thing and the other being "my friend is in strife and could be sent away for a long time" thing.

I'll concentrate on your friend. You refer to him as your friend, having said that, do you really know him? From my experience you have to ask yourself what hasn't he told you? Why did he tell you anything in the first place? You mention you haven't seen the images and yet I detect from your tone you're hoping that his predicament will improve. I believe what naturally follows is that you also have doubt as to his culpability.

Why haven't you viewed the images, there're art, right?

Subscribing to a site that provides images of naked children, was this kept secret from his wife/girlfirend/partner etc.

I'm assuming the authorities now have his computer. The images downloaded, where precisely were they located in his computer? Did he have a secret place to store them, away from where his normal images are stored, if this the case, well you get the idea (knowledge and intent).

Just my two cents worth.

 

[amolitor]

For reference, pedophiles are NOT people who are sexually attracted to underage kids. They are people sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children who are at least 5 years younger then they themselves.

It's perfectly possible to be sexually aroused primarily by what is legally kiddie porn without being a pedophile. It's not legal to posses a bunch of photographs of naked 15 year olds in sexual poses, in most jurisdictions. Such a collection would be of no interest to a pedophile, however. There are other words which correctly describe sexual interest in older children, and in general these syndromes are not viewed as a disorder. They're just damn inconvenient, and if indulged can lead to illegal behavior.

Put another way, having sex with a 15 year old is wrong and illegal in many jursidictions, for excellent reasons, but it's not sick in a technical sense.

It's unfortunate that we have lumped all this stuff together in common usage, since there's a huge amount of air between the two groups of syndromes.

 

[usayit]

Its all in the intent.

Unfortunately, its often left in the eyes of a judge or jury.

Anyone here actually with legal background to give a legal advice? If not, its best to leave it until so.


Need I remind everyone that legalities have nothing to do with morality. That was part of the problem with that hread on the TPF... and some hint of it here. That concept is hard for some to grasp.

 

[480sparky]

........Anyone here actually with legal background to give a legal advice? If not, its best to leave it until so..........

Even if there is, it's probably best not to.

 

[Mr_Mac]

Its all in the intent.

Unfortunately, its often left in the eyes of a judge or jury.


Need I remind everyone that legalities have nothing to do with morality.

It is very interesting that you offer both of those points in a single post. All to often legal and moral are polar opposites to the layperson and that is who is sitting in the jury box. Mind you, I'm not saying that you're at all wrong, fact is, I tend to agree. That said, the discussion we've read here could quite well be the same conversation heard in a deliberation room by people who feel very strongly about this topic as we do should it get that far.

Like I said...a sticky wicket, indeed!

 

[steven_]

...snip....

Anyone here actually with legal background to give a legal advice? If not, its best to leave it until so.

I don't agree, lets talk about it, so what if there's no solicitors present. If they are present I'd welcome their input.

Need I remind everyone that legalities have nothing to do with morality. ....snip.... That concept is hard for some to grasp.

Agree

 

[usayit]

It seems these days... thinking like a prude is the better part of staying out of trouble.