Where is the line? A subject on underage imagry.

[GhostPoet]

So, I was reading an interesting article on underage "pornography" and how the hundreds of non-nude sites out there are not technically considered ponorgrapy and are not actuallly illegal. At least not quite. It's not really "patrolled" by law enforcement despite being hundreds or even thousands of sites all containing pictures (non-nude) of underage girls.

So, my question is...why is it not illegal? I remember reading an article recently (on here infact) about uproar caused over a pre-teen modeling for some sort of clothing ad in a provoctive pose, but it was considered "art" however, many sites from what I know of them couldn't really be considered "art" yet it's still not moderated.

 

[SuperFerret]

Basically, if the intent for the site is for people to *********e to it, then it should be illegal.

 

[GhostPoet]

I agree. But it seems like unless they are nude, law enforcement doesn't really pay attention. But I guess in a way it's understandable, they only have so many resources. They can't chase every IP address. All they can do is go after the biggest offenders, right?

 

[SuperFerret]

Yes, but they should also be evolving with the crimes.

 

[GhostPoet]

Yes, but they should also be evolving with the crimes.

True, but from what I read...the real thing holding it all back is the law system itself. Apparently unless someone has a huge amount of pictures on their hard drive and is distributing them to every he knows it's nearly impossible to prove intent. Comes back to what you said...the law system itself just hasn't caught up with the times.

 

[SuperFerret]

And it won't. There's too much red tape. It takes a while to make or change a law. It takes literally no time at all to change bad behavior.

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

Just clicking this thread probably triggers an automatic FBI background check.

Dude, I don't know why it's not illegal. Write your congressman.

 

[GhostPoet]

I ASSUMED it was illegal, but now i'm not so sure. The more I read on it, the more fuzzy the line sounds.

 

[POWdER-man]

I can only assume that if they are not nude is that they are purposely taking advantage of that grey area, in which if they chose to make it illegal than people who post any type of picture of children would be illegal, which would include facebook, and other social media websites.

 

[SuperFerret]

That grey area can be separated easily though. Nobody puts their kids pics up on their Facebook pages so some perv can jerk it to them, but any site taking advantage of that "grey area" is certainly doing something that has its intentions on the darker side of things.

 

[GhostPoet]

hmm, I can see why it's such a grey area legally. Hard to enforce (enforcement would require more people, more money and then trying to determine who is legitimately too young or just looks like it)

 

[SuperSoldier985]

This has also been a disturbing thing I've noticed that I can't really decide on.

It's also weird when I see young celebrities and actress that are under 18, dressing and posing very provocatively for commercials, music videos, and photoshoots...I'm asking myself, "what are they trying to pull here"?

 

[Calvin]

Ghostpoet seems worried about his personal cache.