Is what I looked at legal?

[Targon_2012]

bleeuugghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh nevermind. Some idiot got offended so I had to delete it. A man can't even ask a serious question these days.

 

[Bert Notorius]

So I got talking to a random older guy in a chatroom a day ago who seemed cool and we got along well. We happened to get talking
about childhood experiences and embarrassing experiences. He happened to tell me about a time when he was 14 in the 1960s how he
was punished by his mother for a wrong doing and was made to stand naked in the corner for hours in front of his sisters who
taunted and laughed at him. I found the account strange but just left it alone. Later on in our convo he happened to send me a
link to something and I clicked on it not knowing what it was beforehand he just said "you'll find it amusing". On the link
was a page containing about 3 different stories of seemingly HIS humiliating sexual childhood experiences as a teen and I know
this as he told me about them earlier on in casual convo. The stories while not actually dealing with sex or physical sexual
activity, dealt with persons under 18 being stripped as punishment in front of members of the opposite sex and mentioned teens
as young as 14. Also on the page was digital images of these situations. An example of 1 pic was a boy about 14 years of age
made to stand on a chair holding his ears totally naked with a red blushing face and look of embarrassment while teen girls and
boys laughed at him and the mother stood nearby with her arms folded looking angry. In the story with the image it was apparently
something his mom did because he broke a house window deliberately with a football out of sheer mischief and tried to lie his way
out of it so he was stripped naked and made to stand still for a couple of hours as punishment. The image I might add had all the
"details" of his body, as in below his waist. He looked around 15 or so but did not look like a full blown child. Would this
type of image be illegal? I am in the UK by the way. It was a cartoon style image so it did not look real but it did have "details".

I know I was nieve for looking at this so please don't judge too much on this but is the fact I viewed this page with these
images and stories on it, illegal? if indeed these things are in fact illegal as I don't know. I heard as long as an image of
a person below 18 is "cartoon" and not realistic at all even if it contains nudity etc, then its safe. Its when images that
look real depicting persons under 18 and is sexual in nature is when its illegal. Is this correct? also can a story be deemed
"illegal" ? the ones on there talked about teens under 18 exposed naked and humiliated in front of other teens and their reactions
and exitement etc towards the exposed individual. While there was no mention of actual sexual activity like sex etc would it be
"illegal" ? what are the laws on these types of stories in the UK?

reported.

 

[phrodeau]

There are places on the Internet to discuss underage matters, but it is not this site.

 

[Boxlicker101]

bleeuugghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh nevermind. Some idiot got offended so I had to delete it. A man can't even ask a serious question these days.

Drawings of a naked child would not be illegal but photographs would. Written descriptions would not be illegal, but neither they nor the drawings would be acceptable as stories on this site.

This forum would not be the place to discuss such pictures or stories, but the Authors' Hangout might be.

 

[KRCummings]

Drawings of a naked child would not be illegal but photographs would. Written descriptions would not be illegal, but neither they nor the drawings would be acceptable as stories on this site.

This forum would not be the place to discuss such pictures or stories, but the Authors' Hangout might be.

Drawings are indeed illegal and several have been convicted for them. The Supreme Court struck down one but when other laws were passed and used they've refused to hear the cases.
Stories have not been tested in the US but they are quite illegal in other countries.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Drawings of a naked child would not be illegal but photographs would. Written descriptions would not be illegal, but neither they nor the drawings would be acceptable as stories on this site.

This forum would not be the place to discuss such pictures or stories, but the Authors' Hangout might be.

^^^ The Kiddie Diddler is the site expert in child porn law.

 

[KRCummings]

^^^ The Kiddie Diddler is the site expert in child porn law.

And he's wrong so he'll be an imprisoned kiddie diddler if he keeps it up and we can only hope that happens sooner rather than later.

 

[RobDownSouth]

And he's wrong so he'll be an imprisoned kiddie diddler if he keeps it up and we can only hope that happens sooner rather than later.

Specious legal advice is a core pillar of the Literotica community. How many times have we seen Ishmael school upper-tier law school graduates on the finer nuances of the law? the Kiddie Diddler is just carrying on the fine RWCJ tradition!

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Drawings of a naked child would not be illegal but photographs would. Written descriptions would not be illegal, but neither they nor the drawings would be acceptable as stories on this site.

This forum would not be the place to discuss such pictures or stories, but the Authors' Hangout might be.

Actually photos are legal.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Actually photos are legal.

I'm not surprised in the least that YOU believe that.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Actually photos are legal.

Photos of persons under the age of 18 engaging in sex are not legal. They are called kiddie-porn. Stories of fictitious characters such as Juliet Capulet or Dolly Haze are legal, and would be even if they had been written in explicit language.

Drawings of a recognizable person who is less than 18 years old might be illegal, but generic illustrations would not be.

 

[KRCummings]

Drawings of a recognizable person who is less than 18 years old might be illegal, but generic illustrations would not be.

Dude, you're wrong. There have been convictions on comic books involving totally fictional characters.
You just keep going on about it all being legal and we'll see where you end up. Why not make up some drawings and put them online to test your knowledge? I double dog dare you.

 

[Mischka]

Dude, you're wrong. There have been convictions on comic books involving totally fictional characters.

This is not my area of practice, so I don't know where this took place, but I must ask, why? If the intent of child pornography laws is to protect minors from being exploited and harmed in the making of such material, how is an entirely fictional creation, not involving real people, harming anyone? Do we really want to expand our laws to cover the comic book version of Romeo and Juliet I saw in a public library?

 

[KRCummings]

This is not my area of practice, so I don't know where this took place, but I must ask, why? If the intent of child pornography laws is to protect minors from being exploited and harmed in the making of such material, how is an entirely fictional creation, not involving real people, harming anyone? Do we really want to expand our laws to cover the comic book version of Romeo and Juliet I saw in a public library?

http://io9.com/5272107/manga-collection-ruled-child-pornography-by-us-court

 

[KRCummings]

This is not my area of practice, so I don't know where this took place, but I must ask, why? If the intent of child pornography laws is to protect minors from being exploited and harmed in the making of such material, how is an entirely fictional creation, not involving real people, harming anyone? Do we really want to expand our laws to cover the comic book version of Romeo and Juliet I saw in a public library?

From wiki:

In Richmond, Virginia, on December 2005, Dwight Whorley was convicted under 18 U.S.C. 1466A for using a Virginia Employment Commission computer to receive "...obscene Japanese anime cartoons that graphically depicted prepubescent female children being forced to engage in genital-genital and oral-genital intercourse with adult males."[63][64][65] On December 18, 2008 the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.[66] The court stated:

"Thus, regardless of whether §1466A(a)(1) requires an actual minor, it is nonetheless a valid restriction on obscene speech under Miller, not a restriction on non-obscene pornography of the type permitted by Ferber. We thus find Whorley’s as-applied constitutional challenge to §1466A(a)(1) to be without merit."[67]

Attorneys for Mr. Whorley have said that they will appeal to the Supreme Court.[68][69] The request for rehearing was denied on June 15, 2009 and the petition for his case to be reviewed by the Supreme Court was denied on January 11, 2010.[70] A major part of the case was that Whorley also received real child pornography.[citation needed]

In October 2008, a 38-year-old Iowa comic collector named Christopher Handley was prosecuted for possession of explicit lolicon manga. The judge ruled that 2 parts of the PROTECT Act criminalizing "a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting" were unconstitutional, but Handley still faced an obscenity charge.[71] Handley was convicted in May 2009 as the result of entering a guilty plea bargain at the recommendation his lawyer, under the belief that the jury chosen to judge him would not acquit him of the obscenity charges if they were shown the images of question.[72]

In October 2010, a 33 year old Idaho man, Steven Kutzner, entered into a plea agreement concerning images of child characters from the American animated television show, The Simpsons engaged in sexual acts.[73][74] In January 2011, Kutzner was sentenced to serve 15 months in federal prison. According to court documents, Kutzner had been downloading, receiving and viewing sexually explicit images of actual children for at least eight years.[75]

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Photos of persons under the age of 18 engaging in sex are not legal. They are called kiddie-porn. Stories of fictitious characters such as Juliet Capulet or Dolly Haze are legal, and would be even if they had been written in explicit language.

Drawings of a recognizable person who is less than 18 years old might be illegal, but generic illustrations would not be.

Reread your post assclown. Nude mags have been around forever. Remember the Coppertone girl? Prolly not. She's from the 60s when we didn't have apoplectic fits about kids.

You've just about got America afraid to hug children. You make me sick.

 

[KRCummings]

Other countries are much more strict than the US, too. Try getting away with drawings in Canada. They clearly define the law to include comics/drawings so there is no question.

So everyone go right ahead and draw all you want. Put it online. Let the world know.

See you in 10-15.

 

[Mischka]

From wiki:

I was unaware of the 2003 Protect Act. So a person can draw two stick figures, claim they're underage, and be convicted. But if the person says the same figures are 18, and it's fine. The original intent of child protection laws are being perverted for political gain ("I protect your children more than the other guy!"), and the impact is that it is diluting our policing and enforcement potential against individuals who are harming real children. We really want to devote our limited resources to someone who snags a couple of Japanese illustrations instead of paying attention to the people who are rounding up real kids to make real images? Gah.

 

[KRCummings]

I was unaware of the 2003 Protect Act. So a person can draw two stick figures, claim they're underage, and be convicted. But if the person says the same figures are 18, and it's fine. The original intent of child protection laws are being perverted for political gain ("I protect your children more than the other guy!"), and the impact is that it is diluting our policing and enforcement potential against individuals who are harming real children. We really want to devote our limited resources to someone who snags a couple of Japanese illustrations instead of paying attention to the people who are rounding up real kids to make real images? Gah.

I sorta vaguely remember the law when it was first discussed and I think it came about due to a few sickos who were circumventing the law by using illustrations and bragging about it. Something like that anyway.
So if that's the case I get them trying to plug a loophole but like you said, it seems rather silly.
Still, gotta be careful what you put out there.

 

[Mischka]

Still, gotta be careful what you put out there.

That's the part that pisses me off. The human mind is filled with perversions of all sorts. Thinking them, even giving them voice through word and illustration, has been a hallmark of mankind. Museums around the world include marble statues and paintings of a goose raping a woman, for goodness sake. And I'm totally okay with never prosecuting a single artist who creates these works or a collector for buying it. No real woman was harmed in the making of these works. I'm totally not okay with any sort of political reasoning that is based on fear mongering and finger wagging "better be safe than sorry".

Another thought: I can't find anything that says how old Leda was when Zeus turned himself into a goose and fucked her, but given life spans and marriages back then, she may very well have been under 18. The Protect Act hates Greek mythology.

 

[Boxlicker101]

This is what I found on the subject. It refers to virtual images generated by a computer, but I would expect pencil drawings to be covered under the same laws.

http://www.popcenter.org/problems/child_pornography/print/

The previous law was overturned by SCOTUS, but new ones might have been passed since then.

1996 Child Pornography Protection Act Definition of child pornography expanded to include virtual images of children and images that appear to be of a minor.

1998 Child Protector and Sexual Predator Punishment Act Internet Service Providers (ISPs) required to report known incidents of child pornography to authorities, but not required to actively monitor customers or sites.

2002 Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition Virtual images ruled not to be pornography; ‘appear to be a minor’ ruled to be too broad.

To summarize the current federal legal situation in the United States:
•A child is defined as any person under the age of 18. Legislation has attempted to broaden the law to include computer-generated images (virtual images that do not involve real children) and people over 18 who appear to be minors. However, the court overturned both of these provisions. Congress has subsequently made a number of amendments to tighten federal law in these areas. Because of the evolving nature of legal provision with respect to Internet child pornography, the reader is advised to obtain up-to-date legal advice on the current situation.
•A different and more stringent standard is applied to images involving children than to images involving adults. Pornography involving a child does not have to involve obscene behavior, but may include sexually explicit conduct that is lascivious or suggestive. For example, in United States v. Knox (1993)[8]a man was convicted for possessing videos in which the camera focused on the clothed genital region of young girls.[9]
•Possession of (not just production and trading of) child pornography is an offense. In the case of the Internet, images do not have to be saved for an offense to have occurred—they simply need to have been accessed.

 

[Mischka]

2002 Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition

Old law. 2003 Protect Act is the new standard. KRC linked it above.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Old law. 2003 Protect Act is the new standard. KRC linked it above.

I read the link, and that law has never been tested in SCOTUS. I doubt that it would hold up Constitutionally.

 

[KRCummings]

I read the link, and that law has never been tested in SCOTUS. I doubt that it would hold up Constitutionally.

They've refused to hear cases based on it so in that way is has been tested and whether or not something is tested by the Supreme Court doesn't make the law invalid. You can doubt all you want but it is the law and your dumbass is in here telling everyone it's not.

 

[thør]

His most successful thread!