When Anti-Child Porn Laws Go Bad

Harry Palmr

Well this was always likely to happen and its just daft.

A 22 year old has been charged with possession of indecent images of a child who is his 17 year old girlfriend and she sent the pix to him.

A TEENAGER has been left devastated after her boyfriend was charged with possession of child pornography because of sexy selfies she sent him.

Alison, 17, (not her real name) and her partner Peter, 22, (also not her real name) say they "didn't know" it was illegal to swap sexy pictures.

"We can have sex, how is sending him a few pictures of myself such a crime?" she says.

"I'm not a young child and Peter is not an abusive sex offender," she adds.

Alison, who is four months away from being 18, has been left shattered by the way the couple have been treated by police.

Under existing law, people aged 16 and 17 can legally consent to sex but can get into trouble for making "child pornography" if they possess and share images of their own lawful sexual activities.

Peter has been charged for possession of indecent photographs of children under the Protection of Children Act./

/Criminalising the 'selfie generation'

The case highlights a problem with using legislation designed to stop child abuse to clamp down on 16-18-year-olds who are sharing photos of themselves consensually.

A collective of academics and legal experts called Backlash is calling for a change to the law to protect the so-called ‘selfie generation’.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/boyfriend-charged-possession-child-porn-5693028

Really the law has to be able to see the difference between consent within a legal relationship and seeking out indecent images of the non-consenting.

What's the law here?

Kids have been charged with distributing child porn in the US, after sending pics of themselves to others.

PandaPoo

Sh*t I have photos of me when I was 17 on my husbands computer I never even thought it could be seen as child porn in that way. I feel really weird now.

kfallon

How did they find out he had the images?

K4t

Whatever about the sense of the bf and gf sending 'sexy selfies' to each other, you really have to wonder about the mental capacity of whoever is pursuing these charges, and for what overall gain. Because it certainly isn't in the name of justice or for the benefit of society.

galljga1

Yeah, this is complete nonsense. She is 17, not twelve and she is not flashing these around on a website. They are on her boyfriends phone. PC crap gone mad.

I think the logic behind the enforcement of the laws is to protect kids from themselves. If you take a sexy pic of yourself and forward it somewhere, it's replicability makes it possible for it to never leave your life. In forty years, it's likely that pic is still on the internet. So people are being charged with distribution and possession in a bid to halt the selfie culture. You might think you're sending it to your boy or girlfriend, but you might be forwarded on ad infinitum.

I'm not saying I agree with doing things that way, just that the intent is to create an atmosphere where distributing images of yourself or others becomes too risky to be worth it, thus protecting the stupid from themselves.

jobbridge4life

K4t wrote: »

Whatever about the sense of the bf and gf sending 'sexy selfies' to each other, you really have to wonder about the mental capacity of whoever is pursuing these charges, and for what overall gain. Because it certainly isn't in the name of justice or for the benefit of society.

They may have no discretion.

DareGod

They might be trying to make an example of them in order to stop under-18s sending such images of themselves. I'm not saying I agree with this case, because I don't, but I can see why they would want to discourage under-18s from taking and sending those kinds of photos of themselves to anyone.

The_Valeyard

kfallon wrote: »

How did they find out he had the images?

yeah, I was thinking about this?

Maybe phone was in for repair, or the parents found out and complained.

If done through gmail they have a filter that can 'sniff' out those kind of pics.

galljga1

Candie wrote: »

I think the logic behind the enforcement of the laws is to protect kids from themselves. If you take a sexy pic of yourself and forward it somewhere, it's replicability makes it possible for it to never leave your life. In forty years, it's likely that pic is still on the internet. So people are being charged with distribution and possession in a bid to halt the selfie culture. You might think you're sending it to your boy or girlfriend, but you might be forwarded on ad infinitum.

I'm not saying I agree with doing things that way, just that the intent is to create an atmosphere where distributing images of yourself or others becomes too risky to be worth it, thus protecting the stupid from themselves.

If you legislate for stupidity half of us will be locked up pretty soon.

Greenmachine

Just think another 4 months and she can legally send a sexy pic of herself for him to put on his cell wall.

Harry Palmr

Candie wrote: »

I think the logic behind the enforcement of the laws is to protect kids from themselves. If you take a sexy pic of yourself and forward it somewhere, it's replicability makes it possible for it to never leave your life. In forty years, it's likely that pic is still on the internet. So people are being charged with distribution and possession in a bid to halt the selfie culture. You might think you're sending it to your boy or girlfriend, but you might be forwarded on ad infinitum.

I'm not saying I agree with doing things that way, just that the intent is to create an atmosphere where distributing images of yourself or others becomes too risky to be worth it, thus protecting the stupid from themselves.

Well the laws in question in this case date back to before the camera-phone was an affordable everyday device (2003) so that's not the case, indeed this stands its a classic example of real life being far out of whack with the law (or the other way round if you prefer!), given that there are of course countless millions of such photos in circulation the only sane thing to do would be to redraft the legislation but someone will probably have to go to jail before that is even considered.

K4t

Candie wrote: »

I think the logic behind the enforcement of the laws is to protect kids from themselves. If you take a sexy pic of yourself and forward it somewhere, it's replicability makes it possible for it to never leave your life. In forty years, it's likely that pic is still on the internet. So people are being charged with distribution and possession in a bid to halt the selfie culture. You might think you're sending it to your boy or girlfriend, but you might be forwarded on ad infinitum.

I'm not saying I agree with doing things that way, just that the intent is to create an atmosphere where distributing images of yourself or others becomes too risky to be worth it, thus protecting the stupid from themselves.

Surely in that case then the girl should be the one facing charges or a possible penalty as she sent the sexy selfies to the boyfriend, who is guilty of having the pictures on his phone. In fact, if the boyfriend has not downloaded the pictures, then surely he could argue that he did not actively seek out possession of child pornography but was delivered it by another person? Unless they're saying it's sexual grooming which is ridiculous considering it's not illegal for them to have a relationship, or sex. The whole situation is pathetic.

galljga1

I recall a case a couple of years ago of a young guy (17, I think) being done for having sex with a 15 or 16 year old girl. More nonsense. I can't remember what happened to him.

galljga1

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Well the laws in question in this case date back to before the camera-phone was an affordable everyday device (2003) so that's not the case, indeed this stands its a classic example of real life being far out of whack with the law (or the other way round if you prefer!), given that there are of course countless millions of such photos in circulation the only sane thing to do would be to redraft the legislation but someone will probably have to go to jail before that is even considered.

OK Harry, spill the beans, where do you get these pics?

Harry Palmr

Well I, er....:o :pac:

Paz-CCFC

PandaPoo wrote: »

Sh*t I have photos of me when I was 17 on my husbands computer I never even thought it could be seen as child porn in that way. I feel really weird now.

Ye're fine. For the purposes of child pornography, a child is defined as under 17 in Ireland. The Irish legislature sensibly set the cut-off age at the same age as consent.

DareGod

PandaPoo wrote: »

Sh*t I have photos of me when I was 17 on my husbands computer I never even thought it could be seen as child porn in that way. I feel really weird now.

Paz-CCFC wrote: »

Ye're fine. For the purposes of child pornography, a child is defined as under 17 in Ireland. The Irish legislature sensibly set the cut-off age at the same age as consent.

Wait.....
What?
You're not allowed have photos of people under 17 on your computer?
Huh?

wolfmoon87

DareGod wrote: »

Wait.....
What?
You're not allowed have photos of people under 17 on your computer?
Huh?

You cant have sexual pictures. Regular ones are fine, of course.

DareGod

wolfmoon87 wrote: »

You cant have sexual pictures. Regular ones are fine, of course.

So does PandaPoo's husband have sexual pictures of her as a 17 year old on his computer?

CruelCoin

So in the UK i could be balls deep in some 17y/o wans arse, but i cannot hold pictures of same....

Wut?

Which mongoloid came up with this?

PandaPoo

DareGod wrote: »

So does PandaPoo's husband have sexual pictures of her as a 17 year old on his computer?

Yeah but it didn't seem weird until now!!

Plus it was only a few years ago, it's not like I'm in my 30s and said oh hey look at me as a naked teen!

Shep_Dog

Paz-CCFC wrote: »

Ye're fine. For the purposes of child pornography, a child is defined as under 17 in Ireland. The Irish legislature sensibly set the cut-off age at the same age as consent.

There's a new sexual offences bill waiting for debate which will change that to 18.

Shep_Dog

CruelCoin wrote: »

So in the UK i could be balls deep in some 17y/o wans arse, but i cannot hold pictures of same....

Wut?

Which mongoloid came up with this?

In the UK, your wan could be 25, but if she looks under 18 and there are pics, those pics would be illegal.

K4t

CruelCoin wrote: »

So in the UK i could be balls deep in some 17y/o wans arse, but i cannot hold pictures of same....

Wut?

Which mongoloid came up with this?

Blunt but to the point. Have to agree with, CrudeCoin.

gazzamc

The real question is, is Peter a her?

I swindled the NSA

One day when I was a kid we were playing on the beach when my younger sister went running off up the beach as naked as the day she was born. Thinking this amusing I took a photograph. That pic would probably be classed as child porn now FFS :rolleyes:

In the UK under current laws back issues of the Sun from the 1980's (when 16 year olds regularly appeared on page 3) are now classed as child porn.

galljga1

CruelCoin wrote: »

So in the UK i could be balls deep in some 17y/o wans arse, but i cannot hold pictures of same....

Wut?

Which mongoloid came up with this?

Any addresses?

I swindled the NSA

Paz-CCFC wrote: »

Ye're fine. For the purposes of child pornography, a child is defined as under 17 in Ireland. The Irish legislature sensibly set the cut-off age at the same age as consent.

Its sensible but It leads to other pitfalls.

A person in a country with a high age of consent could unwittingly download porn off the world wide web which was produced and hosted in a country with a lower age of consent ?

Junkyard Tom

galljga1 wrote: »

PC crap gone mad.

No.

galljga1

galljga1 wrote: »

If you legislate for stupidity half of us will be locked up pretty soon.

While I agree with you there is a difference between adult stupidity and child teenage/ child stupidity.

YFlyer

Sounds like a made up story.