(September 12, 2012 at 4:11 am)Dumac Dwarfking Wrote:(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.
I wasn't talking about sexual maturity. I don't think I'm physically mature yet but I sure as hell am mentally mature. I was actually thinking of people who call pranks like streaking in school "child porn". It never once occurred to me that anybody would consider a group of schoolboys running in the buff something as serious as porn but it does appear from this thread that the law considers it so. In this day and age, if you do something as brave as streaking, it would be such a letdown if you haven't got a video or pics to prove it but if the law really takes that to be porn, then the law is wrong. By mental maturity, I'm actually referring to the fact that I'm not gullible. I'll be able to spot potential paedophiles if I see them. So, the law shouldn't go round molly-coddling people like as if we are a bunch of idiots that need protection from paedophiles.
But I think adults tend to have the wrong mentality. I remember on the other thread, some adults thought the boy who took the video of us running must have been gay. Until I explained that he was tough as nails and is one of the school's top rugby players. My Mum has the same idea. She thinks there is a paedophile lurking at every street corner which is why she's very particular that I do not disclose my whereabouts and details online. But those of us who are mentally mature can tell who is safe and who is a potential paedophile. True, I have friends who can't tell but it's because they are still immature.
The world is not as unsafe as the law makes it out to be. I know a boy who is very small and immature. He likes to run into the shower and snap pics with his phone and then he'd dash out to post the pics just for laughs. Should he go to jail for producing child porn? Child porn by definition must be pornography. It means people having sex or girls in seductive poses. Not boys taking a shower.
The law is a bit like political correctness. On another thread, I was talking about Islam and its dangers and somehow political correctness kicked in and people became less rational.
One day, when I enter politics, I'll revamp the law.
