Okay, let me give an alternative situation then.
A 14 year old girl sends a sexual text message to her (also underage) boyfriend. In Minnesota, the 14-year-old-girl was charged with Child Pornography.
https://www.aclu.org/blog/juvenile-justice/minnesota-prosecu...
If you think morality is black-and-white, then you are going to cause issues to many people. There's nothing "black and white" about distributing child porn. There are unfortunately, a ton of gray areas.
Yes, there are clear-cut cases of CP that need to be banned. But you must ALWAYS be wary about the edge cases, lest you harm otherwise innocent people. A 14-year-old who sends naked pictures of herself to her friends is... well... objectionable, but it shouldn't result in a sex-crime on her permanent record.
It's a fucking stupid thing for them to do, but criminal justice system isn't the solution for that.
It might be hard for Y to prove this though.
Good news! If you are rich enough to pay and keep paying your lawyers then you can move the case to the federal venue either immediately or in appeals court. Now we have a standardized venue to actually discuess any gray areas or lack thereof
That’ll be $2000 for this “hour” of work to afford your freedom, thanks
In many places around the world it's clearly defined to include purely fictional depictions. It seems to be rare, but there have been convictions for possessing child pornography cartoons in the US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_drawn_pornogra...
A relevant note is the distinction between production, distribution and possession (both directly or indirectly) when talking about corner cases.
A 14 years old should not be incriminated of producing or possessing photos of his/her naked body, he or she could be incriminated of distribution in extreme cases (the cited case should not be one of these cases)
How well defined are they really? People have gone to jail for possessing cartoon imagery that depicts children in a way that is deemed pornography under child pornography laws. That does not match your definition of abusing an actual child and publishing footage of it. Such imagery is entirely fictional and seems closer to a story in a novel than a physical act that took place in the real world.
If thats not CP it should be banned as a gross violation of the child's privacy.
Babies aren't sexual and they also don't as far as I can tell have any legal right not to have their parents take or share pictures of them. We could do well not to invent imaginary legal rights.
Posting naked photos of a baby on the internet is an awful violation of a baby's privacy, so it would not be allowed on my platform.
That depends on the jurisdiction. In the USA it isn’t, in Australia fictions in certain media (eg anime) can be considered CP. Even porn with adults who just look young can be considered CP.
That's terrifying. I can't think of a more subjective measure to codify into law than, "if she looks young." In the USA we already have a huge problem with subjectivity in interpretation of laws which allows our government/police to go after people they don't like (with real or imagined infractions).
Actually now that I think about it, I think that's what the state of Texas is doing to Cody Wilson. They're charging him with child molestation and child prostitution by saying that even tho he thought she was 18, she "didn't look like it." (not defending Cody, just stating that the USA may be no better at all in the subjective interpretation of law department).
[1] but not only. other genres like snuff would come to mind. How about an AI generated take on "A Serbian Film"
Fully clothed photos of kids are CP depending on the site where you find them for example. It is "easy" to block everything that could be CP, but that would include photos of children in diapers on Facebook posted by their parents.
It is easy to classify the more horrible stuff, but as soon as you make a line you can be sure some shithead will search for a way to blur it.
In more general terms this is why many things should be at least a bit subjective. Clean-cut definition are too easy to abuse.
No, because Miss Saigon is a fictional piece of work, as is Lolita. Committing a crime in a piece of fiction is obviously not equivalent to actual child pornography, just like showing an action movie isn't equivalent to footage of actual violent crime.
There is no blurry line here. Child abuse and child pornography are clearly defined terms. Justifying child abuse in a novel might be morally offensive, but is not a crime, abusing an actual child however, and publishing footage of it, is.