I find the whole idea of child pornography a bit strange. I should think the term "child pornography" should only apply to porn involving younger children. And it's got to be porn.
We discussed a bit of this on this thread recently:
http://atheistforums.org/thread-14616-po...#pid332557
Napoleon rightly pointed out that schoolboys running naked for a prank shouldn't be considered porn and certainly not child porn. The boy taking the video shouldn't be arrested for "manufacturing child porn" and the website in which he posted the videos shouldn't be slapped with prosecution for "keeping child porn". Nowadays with everyone owning their personal digital cameras and mobile phones, lots of boys I know will be guilty of "child porn" just because the law arbitrarily decides that a child is anyone below 18. No allowance is given for the advanced maturity some of us may be fortunate enough to possess.
We discussed a bit of this on this thread recently:
http://atheistforums.org/thread-14616-po...#pid332557
Napoleon rightly pointed out that schoolboys running naked for a prank shouldn't be considered porn and certainly not child porn. The boy taking the video shouldn't be arrested for "manufacturing child porn" and the website in which he posted the videos shouldn't be slapped with prosecution for "keeping child porn". Nowadays with everyone owning their personal digital cameras and mobile phones, lots of boys I know will be guilty of "child porn" just because the law arbitrarily decides that a child is anyone below 18. No allowance is given for the advanced maturity some of us may be fortunate enough to possess.
