(September 12, 2012 at 2:44 am)greneknight Wrote: 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.
No allowance is given because it's such an obscure thing. Some people may be sexually active well before 18, whilst others may not. 18 is a fair time to say that at most people will have reached sexual maturity by this point. A law has to be generalised or else it becomes vague and manipulatable, and they can't make it 14 simply on the basis that a few people are ready by this point, as the majority are not, at 18 however, it's a safe bet that the person is at least mature enough to fully understand what is going on emotionally as well as physically.
