[quote]Varqanir wrote:
michael2507 wrote:
Michael “Lollipop, anyone?” 2507
“A bit cold and pointless, isn’t it, my lovely?” [/quote]
“What’s happened to yours, my little sister?”
[quote]michael2507 wrote:
In Austria, the age of consent is 14, specific protective provisions for minors (under 18) notwithstanding. As far as I know, it’s 14 in many other European contries as well, e.g. Germany, Italy, Hungary, etc.
Michael “Lollipop, anyone?” 2507[/quote]
It is 16 now…
It was changed when the age of consent for male homosexuality was lowered from 18 to 16…
[quote]
doogie wrote:
If they are supposed to appear under the age of 18, it’s kiddie porn.
Professor X wrote:
What? Kiddie porn is pornography with child-like images. A 17 year old girl, while considered rape and nonconsentual sex if someone over 18 tried to have sex with her, is not “child porn” if seen naked. She isn’t a child. She is a teenager who in most countries would be over the age of consent. You just made a huge generalization. Hopefully that clears that up.[/quote]
You are wrong. It doesn’t matter if they even are minors if the intent was to portray them as minors. Hopefully this clears it up for you.
Title 18 of the United States Code governs child pornography. 18 U.S.C. ? 2256 defines “Child pornography” as:
"any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where -
(A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
(B) such visual depiction is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
(C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
(D) such visual depiction is advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed [b]in such a manner that conveys the impression that the material is or contains a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct . . ." [/b]
? 2256. Definitions for chapter
For the purposes of this chapter, the term?
(1) “minor” means any person under the age of eighteen years;
(2)
(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), ?sexually explicit conduct? means actual or simulated?
(i) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;
(ii) bestiality;
(iii) masturbation;
(iv) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(v) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;
[quote]doogie wrote:
doogie wrote:
If they are supposed to appear under the age of 18, it’s kiddie porn.
Professor X wrote:
What? Kiddie porn is pornography with child-like images. A 17 year old girl, while considered rape and nonconsentual sex if someone over 18 tried to have sex with her, is not “child porn” if seen naked. She isn’t a child. She is a teenager who in most countries would be over the age of consent. You just made a huge generalization. Hopefully that clears that up.
You are wrong. It doesn’t matter if they even are minors if the intent was to portray them as minors. Hopefully this clears it up for you.
Title 18 of the United States Code governs child pornography. 18 U.S.C. ? 2256 defines “Child pornography” as:
"any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where -
(A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
(B) such visual depiction is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
(C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
(D) such visual depiction is advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed [b]in such a manner that conveys the impression that the material is or contains a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct . . ." [/b]
? 2256. Definitions for chapter
For the purposes of this chapter, the term?
(1) “minor” means any person under the age of eighteen years;
(2)
(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), ?sexually explicit conduct? means actual or simulated?
(i) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;
(ii) bestiality;
(iii) masturbation;
(iv) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(v) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;
[/quote]
Well that is a legal definition, meaning it is pretty irrelevant when you try to determine the truth.
If the sky is degreed to be red tomorrow , would you believe it?
[quote]doogie wrote:
doogie wrote:
If they are supposed to appear under the age of 18, it’s kiddie porn.
Professor X wrote:
What? Kiddie porn is pornography with child-like images. A 17 year old girl, while considered rape and nonconsentual sex if someone over 18 tried to have sex with her, is not “child porn” if seen naked. She isn’t a child. She is a teenager who in most countries would be over the age of consent. You just made a huge generalization. Hopefully that clears that up.
You are wrong. It doesn’t matter if they even are minors if the intent was to portray them as minors. Hopefully this clears it up for you.
Title 18 of the United States Code governs child pornography. 18 U.S.C. ? 2256 defines “Child pornography” as:
"any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where -
(A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
(B) such visual depiction is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
(C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
(D) such visual depiction is advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed [b]in such a manner that conveys the impression that the material is or contains a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct . . ." [/b]
? 2256. Definitions for chapter
For the purposes of this chapter, the term?
(1) “minor” means any person under the age of eighteen years;
(2)
(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), ?sexually explicit conduct? means actual or simulated?
(i) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;
(ii) bestiality;
(iii) masturbation;
(iv) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(v) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;
[/quote]
Apparently, our own government is behind the times because if some of you didn’t know before, much of the porn bought today involves girls who are just under the age of consent who lied originally about their age (or who were produced without caring about it). It would mean some here probably have “child porn” in their possession and they don’t even know it.
Also, how does this factor in the internet that isn’t confined to the United States and as such, doesn’t need to abide by that age limit? Anyone visiting random sites is now at risk of viewing “child porn”.
Legally, you are right. As far as reality, however, there is no way that could be enforced.
[quote]orion wrote:
Well that is a legal definition, meaning it is pretty irrelevant when you try to determine the truth.
If the sky is degreed to be red tomorrow , would you believe it?
[/quote]
I didn’t make a moral judgement about it or equate it to pedophilia, I said it was kiddie porn. By definition, it is.
[quote]orion wrote:
michael2507 wrote:
In Austria, the age of consent is 14, specific protective provisions for minors (under 18) notwithstanding. As far as I know, it’s 14 in many other European contries as well, e.g. Germany, Italy, Hungary, etc.
Michael “Lollipop, anyone?” 2507
It is 16 now…
It was changed when the age of consent for male homosexuality was lowered from 18 to 16…[/quote]
Check out § 206ff StGB (BGBl.Nr. 60/1974), where the term unmündige is used:
http://www.ris.bka.gv.at/bundesrecht/
Granted, some specific protective provisions allude to age 16 (i.e. § 207b, 208 StGB) or 18 and younger, which I mentioned above.
From the government help-site:
http://www.help.gv.at/Content.Node/38/Seite.389999.html#sex
So, I still say 14… not that it would matter to me… 
[quote]michael2507 wrote:
orion wrote:
michael2507 wrote:
In Austria, the age of consent is 14, specific protective provisions for minors (under 18) notwithstanding. As far as I know, it’s 14 in many other European contries as well, e.g. Germany, Italy, Hungary, etc.
Michael “Lollipop, anyone?” 2507
It is 16 now…
It was changed when the age of consent for male homosexuality was lowered from 18 to 16…
Check out ? 206ff StGB (BGBl.Nr. 60/1974), where the term unm?ndige is used:
http://www.ris.bka.gv.at/bundesrecht/
Granted, some specific protective provisions allude to age 16 (i.e. ? 207b, 208 StGB) or 18 and younger, which I mentioned above.
From the government help-site:
http://www.help.gv.at/Content.Node/38/Seite.389999.html#sex
So, I still say 14… not that it would matter to me… ;)[/quote]
I?m a little bit proud now…
We seem to have some well thought out laws, get this, concerning sexuality…
I have no idea how we managed to do that, but there it is…
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Apparently, our own government is behind the times because if some of you didn’t know before, much of the porn bought today involves girls who are just under the age of consent who lied originally about their age (or who were produced without caring about it). It would mean some here probably have “child porn” in their possession and they don’t even know it.[/quote]
It’s a little more involved than some dude with a camera asking a girl if she is 18.
Record keeping requirements
Release date: 2005-08-03
(a) Whoever produces any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, or other matter which?
(1) contains one or more visual depictions made after November 1, 1990 of actual sexually explicit conduct; and
(2) is produced in whole or in part with materials which have been mailed or shipped in interstate or foreign commerce, or is shipped or transported or is intended for shipment or transportation in interstate or foreign commerce;
shall create and maintain individually identifiable records pertaining to every performer portrayed in such a visual depiction.
(b) Any person to whom subsection (a) applies shall, with respect to every performer portrayed in a visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct?
(1) ascertain, by examination of an identification document containing such information, the performer?s name and date of birth, and require the performer to provide such other indicia of his or her identity as may be prescribed by regulations;
(2) ascertain any name, other than the performer?s present and correct name, ever used by the performer including maiden name, alias, nickname, stage, or professional name; and
(3) record in the records required by subsection (a) the information required by paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection and such other identifying information as may be prescribed by regulation.
(c) Any person to whom subsection (a) applies shall maintain the records required by this section at his business premises, or at such other place as the Attorney General may by regulation prescribe and shall make such records available to the Attorney General for inspection at all reasonable times.
(d)
(1) No information or evidence obtained from records required to be created or maintained by this section shall, except as provided in this section, directly or indirectly, be used as evidence against any person with respect to any violation of law.
(2) Paragraph (1) of this subsection shall not preclude the use of such information or evidence in a prosecution or other action for a violation of this chapter or chapter 71, or for a violation of any applicable provision of law with respect to the furnishing of false information.
(e)
(1) Any person to whom subsection (a) applies shall cause to be affixed to every copy of any matter described in paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of this section, in such manner and in such form as the Attorney General shall by regulations prescribe, a statement describing where the records required by this section with respect to all performers depicted in that copy of the matter may be located.
(2) If the person to whom subsection (a) of this section applies is an organization the statement required by this subsection shall include the name, title, and business address of the individual employed by such organization responsible for maintaining the records required by this section.
(f) It shall be unlawful?
(1) for any person to whom subsection (a) applies to fail to create or maintain the records as required by subsections (a) and (c) or by any regulation promulgated under this section;
(2) for any person to whom subsection (a) applies knowingly to make any false entry in or knowingly to fail to make an appropriate entry in, any record required by subsection (b) of this section or any regulation promulgated under this section;
(3) for any person to whom subsection (a) applies knowingly to fail to comply with the provisions of subsection (e) or any regulation promulgated pursuant to that subsection; and
(4) for any person knowingly to sell or otherwise transfer, or offer for sale or transfer, any book, magazine, periodical, film, video, or other matter, produce in whole or in part with materials which have been mailed or shipped in interstate or foreign commerce or which is intended for shipment in interstate or foreign commerce, which?
(A) contains one or more visual depictions made after the effective date of this subsection of actual sexually explicit conduct; and
(B) is produced in whole or in part with materials which have been mailed or shipped in interstate or foreign commerce, or is shipped or transported or is intended for shipment or transportation in interstate or foreign commerce;
which does not have affixed thereto, in a manner prescribed as set forth in subsection (e)(1), a statement describing where the records required by this section may be located, but such person shall have no duty to determine the accuracy of the contents of the statement or the records required to be kept.
(g) The Attorney General shall issue appropriate regulations to carry out this section.
(h) As used in this section?
(1) the term ?actual sexually explicit conduct? means actual but not simulated conduct as defined in subparagraphs (A) through (D) of paragraph (2) of section 2256 of this title;
(2) ?identification document? has the meaning given that term in section 1028 (d) of this title;
(3) the term ?produces? means to produce, manufacture, or publish any book, magazine, periodical, film, video tape, computer generated image, digital image, or picture, or other similar matter and includes the duplication, reproduction, or reissuing of any such matter, but does not include mere distribution or any other activity which does not involve hiring, contracting for managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation of the performers depicted; and
(4) the term ?performer? includes any person portrayed in a visual depiction engaging in, or assisting another person to engage in, actual sexually explicit conduct.
(i) Whoever violates this section shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, and fined in accordance with the provisions of this title, or both. Whoever violates this section after having been convicted of a violation punishable under this section shall be imprisoned for any period of years not more than 10 years but not less than 2 years, and fined in accordance with the provisions of this title, or both.
[quote]
Legally, you are right. As far as reality, however, there is no way that could be enforced.[/quote]
You don’t give the government enough credit. They don’t even have to be nude or doing anything overtly sexual:
United States v Knox:
In Knox, a man who had previously been convicted of receiving child pornography through the mail ordered video tapes (by mail) of girls between the ages of ten and seventeen who, in the Court’s words, “were dancing or gyrating in a fashion not natural for their age.” The girls wore bikini bathing suits, leotards, or underwear - none of the girls in the videos was nude. The videos were set to music, and it appeared that someone off-camera was directing the girls. The photographer videotaped the girls dancing, and zoomed in on each girl’s pubic area for an extended period of time. Knox was prosecuted under United States Child Pornography laws.
Legal counsel for Knox argued that “lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area” meant that the girls had to be nude - wearing clothing meant that that genitals and pubic area were clearly not exhibited. The Court disagreed and held that there was no nudity requirement in the statute: “the statutory term “lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area,” as used in 18 U.S.C. ? 2256(2)(E), does not contain any requirement that the child subject’s genitals or pubic area be fully or partially exposed or discernible through his or her opaque clothing.”
[quote]doogie wrote:
You don’t give the government enough credit. They don’t even have to be nude or doing anything overtly sexual:
[/quote]
Too true. And some would even have the work of Shakespeare and Nabokov be considered ‘child pornography,’ for the depiction of sex acts between minors.
My (abbreviated) opinion is that we should not legislate morality or “correct” sexual thinking. All such laws ought to flow from the nature of the thing, which is to protect the child. Equating a pornographic drawing of an imaginary child with a pornographic photograph of a real child is simply nonsensical.
Further, what about porn from a foreign country, in which a 16 year old is allowed to be filmed engaging in sexually explicit acts? Owning such materials would not be harming or contributing to the further harm of minors in that country, especially if 16 were the age of majority. Instead, such laws are intended to address the moral health of the public, rather than addressing real disturbances to the persons of individuals involved.
Like others said, doogie, US law is really not relevant to this discussion (since many here are not american).
That being said, you are still wrong. The law would not be applicable because of the term “appears to be”. Simply put, I don’t hear anyone complaining that the girls have child-like bodies (and if they did have child-like bodies, it WOULD be illegal, and becoming aroused by it WOULD sugest pedophilia). The complaint is that they have child-like faces, and you know what, that doesn’t make it kiddie porn, it is just a representation of ideals. After all, when is the last time you heard a woman say “I sure am glad I don’t look like an 18 year old anymore”?
If you have any doubts about this, note that anime porn is not illegal.
[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
Like others said, doogie, US law is really not relevant to this discussion (since many here are not american).[/quote]
It’s an American website, run by an American company, with the vast majority of participants being American. Of course US law is relevant.
[quote]
That being said, you are still wrong. The law would not be applicable because of the term “appears to be”. Simply put, I don’t hear anyone complaining that the girls have child-like bodies (and if they did have child-like bodies, it WOULD be illegal, and becoming aroused by it WOULD sugest pedophilia). The complaint is that they have child-like faces, and you know what, that doesn’t make it kiddie porn, it is just a representation of ideals. After all, when is the last time you heard a woman say “I sure am glad I don’t look like an 18 year old anymore”?
If you have any doubts about this, note that anime porn is not illegal.[/quote]
No, you are wrong. Two seconds on google would keep you from saying stupid things.
"A 53-year-old Richmond man yesterday became the first person convicted under a 2003 federal statute that makes obscene cartoon drawings as well as photographs an illegal form of child pornography.
Dwight Whorley could be sentenced to more than 1,000 years in prison because a jury found him guilty of 74 counts of child pornography charges in U.S. District Court. Those counts include the obscene cartoons and charges of sending and receiving obscene e-mails describing sexual abuse of children.
Whorley used a computer at a Virginia Employment Commission office in Richmond on March 30, 2004, to view obscene Japanese anime cartoons that depict female children being forced into sexual intercourse with adult males."
Hey, what about the part at the end where you yell, “You damn kids, get off my lawn!!!”
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Let’s hear it for public education in America! Your parents resented paying taxes to pay teachers a decent salary, so most decent ones left. Paying more for education might cut into the new vacation home or the next trip to Disneyworld! How horrible! So, many of you are paying the price for such hedonism.
My father was a WWII Army sergeant, Omaha Beach vet and a truck driver, but he knew the value of an education. I suspect that many of you were raised by hippies, who lived for the moment. My values were formed by a man who survived the Great Depression, D-Day, the battle across Europe, then drove a truck for a living. Too bad many of you were never instilled with any values. Notice how hardly anyone condemned the statements about God and blowjobs, kiddie porn dressed up as cartoons, and so forth. With no values, you are no better than animals wandering in the jungle.
Like Bob Dole said, “America, where is your soul?” It’s dead, Bob. It died from South Park and Girls Gone Wild and sundry other vile things. It turned your country into a swarm of semi-literate amoral savages.
When the Roman Empire ‘died’ in 476 AD, no one cared. I suspect the sentiment will be the same for this society.
[/quote]
[quote]doogie wrote:
It’s an American website, run by an American company, with the vast majority of participants being American. Of course US law is relevant.
[/quote]
There are a lot of Canadians and Brits on here as well, and a speckling of other nationalities as well. And headhunters outrage wasn’t legal, it was moral.
[quote]
No, you are wrong. Two seconds on google would keep you from saying stupid things.
"A 53-year-old Richmond man yesterday became the first person convicted under a 2003 federal statute that makes obscene cartoon drawings as well as photographs an illegal form of child pornography.
Dwight Whorley could be sentenced to more than 1,000 years in prison because a jury found him guilty of 74 counts of child pornography charges in U.S. District Court. Those counts include the obscene cartoons and charges of sending and receiving obscene e-mails describing sexual abuse of children.
Whorley used a computer at a Virginia Employment Commission office in Richmond on March 30, 2004, to view obscene Japanese anime cartoons that depict female children being forced into sexual intercourse with adult males."[/quote]
Depictions of children being forced into sex with adults, that is clearly child pornography. Depictions of adult-bodied women with large eyes and small mouths (making their faces look child-like) is NOT child pornography. The later is what outraged headhunter. I really don’t see what you are arguing, or why you are arguing it.
You are changing you arguement. You first said:
I showed you it clearly can be.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
In the past month, I’ve found on this site:
(1) A thread where a guy posts cartoons of 12 year old little girls with large breasts. Some have semen stains on themselves or their clothing.
(2) A thread where men who have long hair, fingernail polish, and earrings aren’t necessarily gay!
(3) Photos of girls kissing. Are they lesbians? I used to think so, but I might be wrong.
(4) I’ve argued with a guy who says that “God can suck my dick!”
Besides all the great body development info, we have all this great stuff! Absolutely fascinating!![/quote]
What! Pictures of hot girls kissing! Um… post it again I seem to have forgotten that!
I need to review it again to give you an honest opinion.
[quote]Natural Nate wrote:
Hey, what about the part at the end where you yell, “You damn kids, get off my lawn!!!”[/quote]
LOL!
[quote]doogie wrote:
You are changing you arguement. You first said:
If you have any doubts about this, note that anime porn is not illegal
I showed you it clearly can be.
[/quote]
There is no change in my argument whatsoever. I have emphasized that the key is whether they have physically mature bodies or not. This is what defines pedophelia.
I did not dispute that a sexual drawing of a child is child pornography, and the law is very similar in Canada. However, headhunter calling what was posted in the other thread kiddie porn is ridiculous. That’s because it is not appearant that they are minors. The truth is, they might be children that matured very early. However, they could just as easily be adults that look young.
What you did here is take one line out of several posts, and claim that the one line was a representation of my argument. It doesn’t take a genius to understand that “anime porn” was ment in the general sense. That is, animated pornography with clearly physically mature women with youthful facial features (what offended headhunter so much he suggested anyone who likes it should be murdered)is not illegal. I do not dispute that animated pornography of CHILDREN is illegal, but that’s a very different thing, isn’t it?
Well, I’d say this picture definitely qualifies as child pornography according to Title 18 U.S.C. Section 2256, wouldn’t you say, Doogie?
Those fucking French perverts.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Well, I’d say this picture definitely qualifies as child pornography according to Title 18 U.S.C. Section 2256, wouldn’t you say, Doogie?
Those fucking French perverts.[/quote]
OMG you are going to jail for having child porn on your computer and for distributing it. I know, I’ve seen the law!!!11