Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Court Reinstates Proof-of-Age Requirement For Nude Ads

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the barely-legal dept.

The Courts 267

arbitraryaardvark writes "An Ohio swinger's magazine objects to keeping proof on file that its advertisers are over 18. I reported here in 2007 that the 6th circuit struck down U.S.C. Title 18, Section 2257 as a First Amendment violation. The full 6th circuit has now overturned that ruling. The case might continue to the Supreme Court. The Cleveland Plain Dealer reports."

cancel ×

267 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

First nudes (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26943863)

Suck my hairy dick bitch!

Re:First nudes (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26943957)

Suck my hairy dick bitch!

$250.

First one to Say /. Moderators Suck Dick (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26944095)

Slashdot Moderators will eagerly guzzle your cum if you agree with their dumb-ass views.

This is because Slashdot moderators are limp dicked retards.

Re:First nudes (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26944377)

Suck my hairy dick bitch!

Why date a shemale if you aren't willing to suck it yourself? Stupid troll.

SOP (4, Insightful)

raydobbs (99133) | more than 5 years ago | (#26943877)

It should just be SOP that you have a proof of age statement for ANY model that could potentially be seen as underage, file it right along side the model release form - and call it a day. A little extra insurance saves tons of headaches later in life, and a little prudence and CYA never killed anyone in this lawsuit-happy world.

Any model? (-1, Troll)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 5 years ago | (#26943999)

So you can't have child stars? Home Alone was a mistake? (Ok, bad example, but you get the idea.)

Or do you mean any nude model?

Re:Any model? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26944569)

it's pretty implicit if not entirely explicit (no pun intended) under this topic heading that we're talking about nude models. I am stupider for reading your comment.

Re:SOP (4, Interesting)

owlnation (858981) | more than 5 years ago | (#26944249)

Mod Parent up. I have no idea why some overzealous mod has modded the OP flamebait. I don't think "flamebait" means what the mod thinks it means -- must be a wikipedia admin with /. mod points.

The OP is correct, it's sensible advice. As a filmmaker and photographer I always do get forms signed and ID from models. It's extremely annoying to have to do that, but it's insurance nonetheless. Never underestimate the stupidity of humanity when it comes to anything sex-related.

Re:SOP (2, Insightful)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 5 years ago | (#26944641)

I would guess that a publication such as this would be afraid it would lose customers if those customers knew their names were going to be on file for an extended period just waiting for somebody to go trying to dig up some dirt on them.

Isn't proof of age up front enough?

Re:SOP (1)

Seedy2 (126078) | more than 5 years ago | (#26944689)

Mod Parent up. I have no idea why some overzealous mod has modded the OP flamebait. I don't think "flamebait" means what the mod thinks it means -- must be a wikipedia admin with /. mod points.

The OP is correct, it's sensible advice. As a filmmaker and photographer I always do get forms signed and ID from models. It's extremely annoying to have to do that, but it's insurance nonetheless. Never underestimate the stupidity of humanity when it comes to anything sex-related.

Too many words in your last sentence, just say: "Never underestimate the stupidity of humanity."
Because it's not possible to overestimate it. :)

Re:SOP (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 5 years ago | (#26944859)

>>>As a filmmaker and photographer I always do get forms signed and ID from models.

As a casual observer, I don't know why I need to provide proof of age to post an advertisement. Nudity is not illegal, even if you're only 16 years old (like a certain naked HSM star). In fact I could walk into Barnes & Noble right now and buy multiple books filled with naked children. It's called freedom of the press. It's called natural.

"Because God created the human body, it may remain uncovered and still preserve His splendor." - Pope John Paul

Idea... (2, Funny)

v1 (525388) | more than 5 years ago | (#26944267)

Require a license number in really small print in the lower right corner on published pornographic pictures, with the actors' license number(s). And require them to be licensed. If anyone has any questions right there's the number and look it up. If the actor looks like the pic on file well then ok. If it doesn't have a number or if they're obviously not the same person, go after the publisher for consent. Problem solved.

Re:Idea... (3, Funny)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 5 years ago | (#26944299)

You "solved the problem" by making things even more difficult than what people are already bitching about.

Re:Idea... (5, Funny)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 5 years ago | (#26944513)

You "solved the problem" by making things even more difficult than what people are already bitching about.

Yep. There is a bright future in governmental service for that gentleman.

Re:Idea... (2, Insightful)

mcpkaaos (449561) | more than 5 years ago | (#26944435)

If it doesn't have a number or if they're obviously not the same person, go after the publisher for consent.

Porn is probably the number one industry in which people radically alter their appearance frequently, if not regularly. Good luck enforcing your idea.

Re:Idea... (1)

mdarksbane (587589) | more than 5 years ago | (#26944763)

Why the hell should I have to register to take a picture of myself.

The magazine is aimed at amateurs, at people looking to hook up with other people who like sex. Why the hell should you have to register your personal habits?

Re:SOP (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 5 years ago | (#26944395)

Okay, so let's see the records you have for the pictures of the toddler running around without a diaper, who you accidentally caught in a funny but "suggestive" pose.

Don't try to tell me that the law doesn't apply to you! As written, it most certainly does.

Re:SOP (2, Insightful)

westlake (615356) | more than 5 years ago | (#26944551)

It should just be SOP that you have a proof of age statement for ANY model that could potentially be seen as underage

It surprised me that this post was originally modded as Flamebait.

Because the professional artist or photographer needs to have this nailed down before the session begins.

Re:SOP (4, Insightful)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 5 years ago | (#26944601)

apparently reading the summary is not being done, more so in responses to your post, but also in yours. It is not the magazine that is taking pictures. The magazine is being told that it has to have age verification ON THE ADVERTISERS PICTURES. Not their picturse, the pictures from their advertisers.

oblig. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26943891)

This Thread Is Worthless Without Pictures.

Re:oblig. (1)

genner (694963) | more than 5 years ago | (#26944053)

This Thread Is Worthless Without Pictures.

Go back to Fark outsider!

Re:oblig. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26944083)

It's a swingers' magazine. Do you have any idea what swingers look like? Trust me... the lack of pictures is a plus.

Re:oblig. (0)

mcpkaaos (449561) | more than 5 years ago | (#26944483)

It's a swingers' magazine. Do you have any idea what swingers look like? Trust me... the lack of pictures is a plus.

Something like this [wikipedia.org] ?

Re:oblig. (1)

fractalVisionz (989785) | more than 5 years ago | (#26944705)

Gross, to many balls in this picture!

Re:oblig. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26944669)

Swinging? Around here we call it Striping - when two men can service your wife's I/O requests simultaneously.

Re:oblig. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26944747)

Actually, a gf of mine was a swinger before she met me and she was pretty hot redhead. It was a rather unhealthy lifestyle for her, though. Her husband goaded her into it, only to discover the obvious: though they did sometimes swing in the sense of trading partners with another couple, it mostly meant that he stayed home while she dated (and had sex) a lot. I remember one time watching HGTV with her and she pointed out the attractive hostess was a swinger in Atlanta (where she'd live before meeting me).

There are a lot of lifestyles like that, where I believe it's possible to approach them in a way that's healthy but the reality is that they're usually a sign of major psychological or emotional problems. Eventually I had to break up with her because her problems made the relationship impossible.

By the way, the crazy sex wasn't as good as sex I've had with less crazy (but still experimental) women. One time she did something which was pretty annoying (riding *extremely* fast in cowgirl position) and when I told her I didn't like it, she said "but that's what I'm known for."

Re:oblig. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26944253)

You need a slashdot gold account to see the pictures.

Re:oblig. (1)

sukotto (122876) | more than 5 years ago | (#26944607)

Yeah let's go. This place is dead anyway.

Re:oblig. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26944803)

You obviously haven't seen what most swingers look like.

Here, let me give you a hint, if they were hot like(this is /. so I'm gonna use some easy ones) say, Jennifer Aniston, Natalie Portman, Neve Campbell, etc. do you think they'd need to *advertise* they wanted sex with no strings attached? Do you think they'd have to go to a special club or party that they'd have to pay for admission so they could get sex?

Yeah, now are you sure you want those pics?

Picture Collectors (5, Interesting)

Renraku (518261) | more than 5 years ago | (#26943921)

The proof-of-age thing really hits picture collectors hard. For those pictures that do not have a site tag on them, if questioned, the collector must be able to come up with proof-of age. The only thing a court needs to convict you of possession of child pornography is 'reasonable suspicion' that the subject of the photo is underage and the pose is considered 'sexual.' There are many models out there that are well above the age of consent that might raise suspicions.

Re:Picture Collectors (2, Interesting)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 5 years ago | (#26944009)

The only thing a court needs to convict you of possession of child pornography is 'reasonable suspicion' that the subject of the photo is underage and the pose is considered 'sexual.'

So, what about Lady Justice? Wasn't the model for that statue 12 or so?

Re:Picture Collectors (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26944469)

If you think the Lady Justice statue is sexual in nature, you've got problems.

Re:Picture Collectors (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26944623)

i'd hit it.

Re:Picture Collectors (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26944019)

The proof-of-age thing really hits picture collectors hard. For those pictures that do not have a site tag on them, if questioned, the collector must be able to come up with proof-of age. The only thing a court needs to convict you of possession of child pornography is 'reasonable suspicion' that the subject of the photo is underage and the pose is considered 'sexual.' There are many models out there that are well above the age of consent that might raise suspicions.

That's the risk you take when you have a predaliction for pre-teen looking girls and boys with shaved parts doing the nasty nasty... If you're into the Daddy-Doughter thing or the Mommy-Son thang or the Sister-Brother thing, you run the risks... OR MAYBE YOU JUST WANT TO FANTISIZE THAT YOUR ROCK HARD ONE EYED MONSTER IS TILLING THE SMOOTH TIGHT VIRGIN PUSSY OF A 12 YEAR OLD SLUT. One of those things. When your thrill is teenaged boy dumping their load in your mouth, well, sometimes it doesn't work out.

Re:Picture Collectors (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 5 years ago | (#26944111)

The only thing a court needs to convict you of possession of child pornography is 'reasonable suspicion' that the subject of the photo is underage and the pose is considered 'sexual.'

I must have missed the memo where they lowered the standard from "beyond a reasonable doubt" to "reasonable suspicion". In the words of wikipedia: [citation needed]

Re:Picture Collectors (1, Flamebait)

binarybum (468664) | more than 5 years ago | (#26944281)

welcome to the post-bush era. it's going to be next to impossible to turn back now.

Re:Picture Collectors (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26944309)

My Bible and evangelical leaning means you blaspheme, sir! You blaspheme!

Re:Picture Collectors (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 5 years ago | (#26944459)

I must have missed the memo where they lowered the standard from "beyond a reasonable doubt" to "reasonable suspicion"

"Reasonable doubt" in this context means only that a jury can find that an man of ordinary intelligence, judgment and experience, could have have mistaken the model for an adult.

The problem is that the jury won't be looking at a single photograph, but rather the hundreds or thousands of those you've collected which were entered into evidence.

The problem is that the jury won't be looking at the girl alone or the sexual content alone - but at how the videos and photos were presented on the web, the stage settings used, costumes, props, and so on.

Re:Picture Collectors (1)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 5 years ago | (#26944727)

I think the problem is that with CP being such a touchy and emotional issue, cops investigating it, prosecutors prosecuting it and juries deciding on it, will be very tempted to take anything that even remotely looks like CP to BE CP, and make decisions accordingly.

I wish people would be reasonable, but I'm starting to think that's unrealistic.

Pure FUD (1)

Wrath0fb0b (302444) | more than 5 years ago | (#26944199)

The only thing a court needs to convict you of possession of child pornography is 'reasonable suspicion' that the subject of the photo is underage and the pose is considered 'sexual.'

No, the law requires you to have proof of age if you distribute the photos to anyone else. If you don't, you aren't guilty of possession of child porn, you are guilty of distributing porn without the proper labeling. This is analogous to various laws that make it illegal to distribute things without adequate source documentation -- food and ingredient lists, drugs and dosages, clothes and country of origin, appliances and their wattage ...

In order to get a conviction on private possession of CP the jury must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that person did, in fact, possess child porn.

Please cite any authority to the contrary or stop spreading FUD.

WRONG (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 5 years ago | (#26944329)

Not true. The law applies as much to individuals as it does to commercial purposes. Quote (from 2257):

(a) Whoever produces any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digital image, digitally- or computer-manipulated image of an actual human being, picture, or other matter which--

(1) contains one or more visual depictions made after November 1, 1990 of actual sexually explicit conduct; and

(2) is produced in whole or in part with materials which have been mailed or shipped in interstate or foreign commerce, or is shipped or transported or is intended for shipment or transportation in interstate or foreign commerce;


So if you bought your camera on eBay, or the photo paper for your printer came from some other state, the law applies to you. It is pretty clear.

Re:WRONG (2, Insightful)

Wrath0fb0b (302444) | more than 5 years ago | (#26944369)

(a) Whoever produces any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digital image, digitally- or computer-manipulated image of an actual human being, picture, or other matter which ...

The word "produce" has a specific legal meaning that is not the same as "possess".

Re:WRONG (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 5 years ago | (#26944427)

That's not an argument. So, what is the definition of "produce" then? Only knowing that will we know if it applies.

Re:WRONG (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26944535)

Sorry I don't have a cite, but I have read that "produce" includes "saving a picture to your hard disk".

Re:WRONG (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 5 years ago | (#26944519)

Here is the meaning of "produce" that I found in a legal dictionary. Edited for brevity (much of the entry is not relevant):

As a noun, the product of natural growth, labor, or capital. Articles produced or grown from or on the soil, or found in the soil.

As a verb, ... To make, originate, or yield, as gasoline. To bring to the surface, as oil. To yield, as revenue. Thus, funds are produced by taxation, not when the tax is levied, but when the sums are collected.

So anybody who "makes" or "originates" pornographic pictures or videos is covered by the law. Just as I originally stated.

Got any pornographic pictures of your girlfriend? That you made yourself? You had damned well better have 2257 records for them, if even so much as the ink in your printer came to you via "interstate commerce"!

Re:Picture Collectors (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 5 years ago | (#26944215)

No, that is not true. SCOOTUS ruled a few years ago that in order for something to be considered "child pornography", it must be shown that the depictions of of real children (not just adults who look like children, or faked images), and it must be actual pornography. It might be possible to arrest you on reasonable suspicion, but they need facts to convict.

Re:Picture Collectors (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26944411)

No, they need only two things to convict:

1 - Any prosecutor capable of putting together the words "child" and "pornography".
2 - A jury with a majority of people who immediately raise a hue and cry to "protect the children".

It is an undisputed fact that the legal system convicts based on the fears and biases of the jury, and the prosecution's ability to manipulate the same better than the defense counsel.

Re:Picture Collectors (1)

nightfire-unique (253895) | more than 5 years ago | (#26944571)

For speech/a picture to be ruled illegal, it must be obscene.

Nude photos with no explicit sexual content of young people are illegal, and thus are obscene.

Great message we're sending young people. Sure that won't come back to bite us in the ass in 20 years.

Re:Picture Collectors (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26944831)

Nude photos with no explicit sexual content of young people are illegal, and thus are obscene.

So, medical textbooks are now illegal? Makes it difficult to become a pediatrician.

Re:Picture Collectors (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26944785)

The only thing a court needs to convict you of possession of child pornography is 'reasonable suspicion' that the subject of the photo is underage and the pose is considered 'sexual.'

Ummm, no. Otherwise Miley Cyrus, Annie Leibovitz and Vanity Fair's staff would all be in jail:

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/video/2008/miley_video200806 [vanityfair.com]

Re:Picture Collectors (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26944885)

There are many models out there that are well above the age of consent that might raise suspicions.

I'm interested. How about a link?

Onerous requirement (1)

srussia (884021) | more than 5 years ago | (#26943937)

It looks like these businesses will have to buy extra equipment (ten-foot pole) to check Goatse Guy's ID.

Kids will Lie. (-1, Offtopic)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 5 years ago | (#26943945)

I am sorry no matter howmany safe guards you put up. A kid will find a way to see such material.

You Under 18 [disney.com]
You are 18 and over [http]

A kid say 13-17 who wants to see such material will go yea I am over 18, and click the link. The more difficult you get won't stop any kid who wants to get in. For the most part if a kid wants to see internet porn they can no matter what blocks you put in.

Re:Kids will Lie. (1)

LiENUS (207736) | more than 5 years ago | (#26943961)

Whats this got to do with models being required to prove they're over 18?

Re:Kids will Lie. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26943975)

For the most part if a kid wants to see internet porn they can no matter what blocks you put in.

Not if I put a concrete block in their PSU, they won't!

Re:Kids will Lie. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26943983)

For the most part if a kid wants to see internet porn they can no matter what blocks you put in.

This story is about proof of age for producers/distributors of photography, not viewers.

Re:Kids will Lie. (4, Insightful)

DJRumpy (1345787) | more than 5 years ago | (#26944289)

This is about the people/models in the photo's, not the one's wanting to see it. It wasn't designed to protect minors from adult pornography, but to protect minors from predatory pornographers. I have to agree that the restrictions were far to onerous to be useful. The whole 'fantasy' of pedophiles is purported to all be based on appearance. If someone looks to be a little long in the tooth, then why force them to maintain a pointless record verifying that aren't hot to a pedophile?

It then comes down to who decides what looks 'legal' and who doesn't. I can see this turning into the same mess as ID verification for Alcoholic beverages (anyone over 30 ID'd). Somewhat of a joke since you can't really tell everyone age with any accuracy from looks.

If the law is too difficult or to sweeping to enforce without unnecessarily restricting someone's first amendment rights, then it should be overturned as unconstitutional. We have those protections for a reason.

They should find a better way to put the sick bastards away who peddle child porn.

Mod up. (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 5 years ago | (#26944467)

This is the most balanced comment I have seen yet.

Who cares? (5, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#26943969)

Honestly, who cares? As long as no one is hurt, it should be legal. The government is not our moral compass. As long as it does not negatively impact you or anyone who didn't agree with it (and agreement should not have an age restriction), it should be, by definition, legal.

Re:Who cares? (2, Insightful)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 5 years ago | (#26944055)

Honestly, who cares? As long as no one is hurt, it should be legal. The government is not our moral compass. As long as it does not negatively impact you or anyone who didn't agree with it (and agreement should not have an age restriction), it should be, by definition, legal.

That's what a lot of people here say, but the problem is that a lot of people think exactly that and so this is why our elected representatives craft such laws.

Re:Who cares? (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 5 years ago | (#26944113)

the problem is that a lot of people think exactly that

Why is that a problem? That's circular reasoning, unless your argument is that anything a lot of people here agree with is inherently bad.

What is the purpose of government?

Re:Who cares? (3, Funny)

secondsun (195377) | more than 5 years ago | (#26944241)

What is the purpose of government?

I always thought it was to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity".

But I could be wrong.

Re:Who cares? (2, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 5 years ago | (#26944091)

(and agreement should not have an age restriction)

So anyone from a three year old that's barely learned yes to a 17.5 year old should be able to agree to anything, and then it's legal? Come on, you gotta be kidding me.

Re:Who cares? (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#26944115)

So anyone from a three year old that's barely learned yes to a 17.5 year old should be able to agree to anything, and then it's legal?

I did not say that there was no mental capacity restriction. For example, the 3 year old would not be in a fit mental condition to make decisions, however an advanced 13 year old would be able to, similarly a mental retarded 25 year old may not be in a fit mental condition.

The problem in our society is the magical age of 16, 18 and 21. What would be illegal to do at 17 and 360 days suddenly becomes legal 5 to 6 days later.

Re:Who cares? (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 5 years ago | (#26944177)

Well, and why should it not only be illegal, but a sex offense, thus putting the young man on a sex offender's list for life because he didn't wait 5-6 days?

Re:Who cares? (1)

nbates (1049990) | more than 5 years ago | (#26944719)

Because we don't create laws to test people's willpower. We do it so we can protect people.

In this case, the law is meant to protect children. And since we set a hard limit, we get a glitch in the system, that the parent correctly pointed out.

But what he pointed out can't be solved by setting a fuzzy limit, because there is no way to determine such fuzzy limit. The parent is just trying to be smart.

I think that, as a society, we shouldn't be so hard on those who "didn't wait 5 to 6 days". That's just stupid and hypocritical. But, since the law is a good law in its spirit we should honor it by enforcing it, maybe with palliatives.

But we are currently goings toward a society that would condemn, blacklist and ostracize a 18 years old for having sex with his 17 years old girlfriend. And that's not good in my opinion.

Re:Who cares? (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 5 years ago | (#26944815)

But what he pointed out can't be solved by setting a fuzzy limit, because there is no way to determine such fuzzy limit.

Have we tried?

since the law is a good law in its spirit we should honor it by enforcing it

It's a good law in spirit, but with a glitch. I don't think a flawed law deserves honoring, I think it deserves revision. After all...

But we are currently goings toward a society that would condemn, blacklist and ostracize a 18 years old for having sex with his 17 years old girlfriend.

But, if we don't do that, we're also being hypocritical, unless we change the law. A simple change, adopted by several states, is to also add an age difference -- over 18, you can fuck anyone else over 18. Under 18, 5 years difference -- so 17 and 20 is fine, but 17 and 40 is statutory rape.

Even that is still pretty flawed -- is she really going to be less attracted to that 40-year-old man in a few months when she's 18? -- and there have been cases where a difference of a few days or months means the difference between a healthy relationship (among teens) and getting on the sex offender list, even with laws like that.

I think we should fix the law, instead of selectively enforcing it, which seems to be what you're advocating -- or at least, enforcing it universally, but having the sentence be lessened in cases we "like".

Re:Who cares? (1)

Lemmy Caution (8378) | more than 5 years ago | (#26944207)

The "magical age" is because it is easier to determine someone's age than it is to administer some examination to determine fit mental condition for each and every transaction in which it is meaningful.

As you approach a limit, the delta is "arbitrary." But it's still a limit.

Re:Who cares? (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 5 years ago | (#26944243)

The "magical age" is because it is easier to determine someone's age...

I'm sorry, I thought this is about morality and laws. Since when is "easier" a valid criterion here?

That would be like saying we should jail every Mexican immigrant, because they are likely to have been illegal immigrants, and it's easier to just lock 'em all up than to sort out who has a valid visa (or citizenship), and who sneaked across the border (or overstayed a visa).

It would also be "easier" just to let anyone practice law, rather than requiring a bar exam. And it would be similarly "easier" to charge anyone with long hair with being a Marijuana user, since we all know hippies smoke pot.

It's not about what's easy. It's about what's right, and a test of mental fitness would be far closer to "right", IMO.

Re:Who cares? (1)

nbates (1049990) | more than 5 years ago | (#26944797)

>I'm sorry, I thought this is about morality and laws. Since when is "easier" a valid criterion here?

Actually, you can find your answer in that very paragraph. Moral is not the same as law. Moral can be fuzzy, laws can't. Moral questions are not always easy, and that's ok. But "easier" is a valid criterion when you use morals to create a law. Even more because the alternative you are proposing is not "harder" but "impossible".

Re:Who cares? (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 5 years ago | (#26944271)

The problem with this argument is that it requires somebody to decide who is mentally mature enough to agree, and who is not. And in that case you have just opened up a huge can of worms that believe me, you do NOT want: Who is going to decide? You? A psychologist? "The State"? By what standards?

In practice, the standard would end up being determined by the government, and that's a worse situation than you started out with. As soon as the government starts meddling in such situations as "is this person mentally 'mature enough' to enter into a contract?", you have destroyed everything you wanted to fix.

Re:Who cares? (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 5 years ago | (#26944323)

Yes, there are magical ages. What's the alternative, some government mandated maturity test before you can do certain things? Trying to figure out two years down the road in court after the girl told mom about you whether she in fact, at that point in time two years ago, was sufficiently mature to make the decisions she did? Some kind of self-inspection as if ever a teen would say "I don't consider myself old enough to take that decision"? That's just another variation of manipulating them to think they're old enough to take the decision, just like manipulating the decision itself. Apart from the problem that they lie about their age, it's a perfectly measurable and clear standard. As long as I know a girl's age and she's not seriously retarded, I know exactly what is legal and not without ever being held to some impossible subjective psychoanalytic standard that can not be obtained with any reasonable legal certainty. Try imagining the legal flip-flops you'd have to try doing if he girl got up on the stand and said "I thought I knew what I was doing, but I realize now he was manipulating me", you could never be sure that wouldn't happen. So really, what is the alternative?

Re:Who cares? (1)

nbates (1049990) | more than 5 years ago | (#26944585)

>I did not say that there was no mental capacity restriction.

What does mental capacity means? I don't think there's even a test to decide that. Not even a definition to start thinking about how to create such test.

Your proposal is only valid from a very utopic and theoretical point of view. In practice, you can only establish one or several hard limits (16, 18 and 21) and some exceptions (mental conditions). From then, we can start talking about modifying those limits and maybe we can add some well defined complexity (as opposed to talking about fuzzy things like "mental capacity").

But what you are saying is one of those statements that sound smart but are pretty much meaningless.

Re:Who cares? (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 5 years ago | (#26944143)

It might help if we had an objective way to measure someone's ability to have informed consent.

At the same time, once someone is an "adult" -- which we've arbitrarily defined as 18 -- it doesn't matter if it's informed or not. Yes means yes.

I'm not arguing a three-year-old that's barely learned yes should be able to consent. But what about a six-year-old prodigy?

Or, for that matter, what about an 18-year-old retarded person?

I'm actually not sure what the answer is. I do think that there needs to be real debate about it, and not an automatic, Puritanical recoiling in horror at the mere thought of underage sex. (Not that I am accusing you of that, but it is the common reaction.)

Re:Who cares? (1)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 5 years ago | (#26944255)

the age of consent is a rather amusing topic - the prudish pilgrams who founded america did in fact marry off 13 year old girls. in fact through out history in most cultures sexual activity commenced around the age of 13 - 15. if you were 18 and hadn't had children yet people thought you were barren.

i'm definately not advicating this sort of thing, it was a function of society of the time trying to build up families quickly. if you had a large family you had protection in numbers. but i do think some people really need to get a grip when i see stories about a 15 year old boy having sex with an older woman and she gets convicted of rape.

Re:Who cares? (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 5 years ago | (#26944779)

the age of consent is a rather amusing topic - the prudish pilgrams who founded america did in fact marry off 13 year old girls.

The decision was made by the parents - and I very much doubt they could have gone forward without the advice and consent of their church.

The Puritan was pragmatic about sex.

When you live on the edge of the known world your first concern is survival. You want the men sobered-up, settling down, raising families.

Underage marriages usually imply one or two things: a family alliance to build an estate or an appallingly high death rate, particularly in child birth.

Re:Who cares? (1)

Fulcrum of Evil (560260) | more than 5 years ago | (#26944533)

It might help if we had an objective way to measure someone's ability to have informed consent.

That would never fly - jim crow laws are still too fresh in the cultural memory.

At the same time, once someone is an "adult" -- which we've arbitrarily defined as 18 -- it doesn't matter if it's informed or not. Yes means yes.

I'd like to add a law that states that trying someone as an adult confers on them the rights of an adult - drinking, driving, and screwing (not at the same time). This means that if you try someone as an adult and they get off, they can vote.

Re:Who cares? (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 5 years ago | (#26944277)

The government is not our moral compass.

The role of government is shaped by the values of the community which created it.

I know of no government which will not insist on its right to protect minors against themselves and those who would exploit them.

That can not and will not limit a minor's freedom of action.

Re:Who cares? (1)

sam_v1.35b (1296319) | more than 5 years ago | (#26944339)

agreement should not have an age restriction

I might be misunderstanding you here, so apologies if I am.

Agreement absolutely should have an age restriction, because it comes down to the ability of the person making the agreement to make an informed decision. This is important because if the person making the agreement cannot make an informed decision, then we can't really be sure that noone is going to be hurt.

Is a 14 year old capable of making an informed decision? What about an 8 year old? Maybe, but as a society we've pretty much agreed that 18 is a reasonable place to set the bar.

We might ask who, if not the individual, is in a position to make such a decision on their behalf - I'd say here parents or guardians serve in that role until the child is old enough to make informed decisions.

I agree with the statement that the government is not our moral compass, but in this case I don't think this is about governments acting as a moral compass. I think it's about offering some protection to minors.

Re:Who cares? (1)

nbates (1049990) | more than 5 years ago | (#26944391)

>(and agreement should not have an age restriction),

I don't understand. Do you mean we should let minors do porn as long as they agree with it? And how do you know if s/he is able to decide in a meaningful way?

Actually, I think what you said is too ambiguous... you said "As long as no one is hurt" and "agree". You should now define "hurt" and "agree", which I think is the main issue here.

I understand the logics of what you say. But I think you are putting the cart in front of the horse. Nobody expects the government to be our moral compass, at least that's not the idea. The idea is the government to create or modify current laws to balance different morals and interests, that includes the majority's moral.

Re:Who cares? (1)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 5 years ago | (#26944681)

If you were going to advertise in a swingers magazine, would you care that your name and proof that you did so were to remain on file for an extended period? Do you see how somebody might mind? Might choose not to place the ad for that reason?

Now... If you published the magazine the ads are placed in, wouldn't you mind if you were required to do something that scared off your customers?

Re:Who cares? (1)

dogmatixpsych (786818) | more than 5 years ago | (#26944833)

"The government is not our moral compass."

All criminal law is legislation of morality. The only way for a government to stop being a "moral compass" is to get rid of the whole criminal legal system. Even many civil laws are moral issues to some degree. One of the whole purposes of governments is to be a moral compass (that does not negate our responsibility to have our own internal moral compasses).

Nothing new (4, Insightful)

Hao Wu (652581) | more than 5 years ago | (#26944005)

You don't get publicly carded for buying beer. The transaction is only between you and the store, unless there is evidence of a crime being committed.

It is a deliberate tactic for anti-sex groups to threaten porn stars with stalkers. If they can't shame them into obedience, then they expose them to sexual predators.

Re:Nothing new (1)

Shadow of Eternity (795165) | more than 5 years ago | (#26944165)

OT? This actually frighteningly makes sense, and unfortunately I can see this line of thought actually occuring here in america.

Re:Nothing new (5, Informative)

mtdenial (769442) | more than 5 years ago | (#26944387)

One of the google talks by Violet Blue actually had some interesting information on the 2257 requirement. She did not go quite this far in criticising the law, but pointed out some very serious problems with it.

Basically, a decent chunk of people who needed to prove age for 2257 compliance basically just had pictures of them with the driver's license. Of course, many people tend not to perform under their real name and if these pictures get onto the internet, then someone else can tie a face to a real name and possibly even an address. Not a good situation in general. From what I gather, the wording of the law was pretty vague as well as to what sort of proof was required and who could eventually ask for it.

Anyhow, a pretty interesting talk here with some relevance to the topic: Violet Blue (Google Tech Talks) [youtube.com]

Common Misconception (1)

nick_davison (217681) | more than 5 years ago | (#26944615)

It is a deliberate tactic for anti-sex groups to threaten porn stars with stalkers. If they can't shame them into obedience, then they expose them to sexual predators.

This is commonly used as an argument against 2257. It's also wrong.

If you actually read the wording, it allows for only the original rights owner of an image to keep the full proof of identity.

They may then send a redacted copy to all subsequent re-distributors for their records. That copy may blank out everything uniquely identifiable - driver's license number, etc. - leaving only the picture and the date of birth visible.

So long as a paper trail remains back to the original record holder, no one else has to have any information that aids stalkers. The original record holders only have to produce it for law enforcement, not for anyone curious.

I'll totally concede the act is abusive and designed to threaten pornographers that they can't shut down legally. But it's done with the intent of creating unreasonable burdens for record holders not to target the stars.

But then again, "Won't anyone think of the sleazy fat pornographer?!" doesn't work as well as "Won't anyone think of the poor model?!" Even if the former's true and the latter isn't.

Re:Nothing new (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26944853)

Careful there, they're already moving to document beer purchases:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1151505/Buying-wine-Spy-cameras-watching.html

I just got raped by MJ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26944107)

Someone call the FBI!!!!

Re:I just got raped by MJ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26944169)

I hear he's got one of those MOSTER cocks that black guys are known to have, an ANACONDA, if you will.

Supreme Court (1)

RepelHistory (1082491) | more than 5 years ago | (#26944203)

The case might continue to the Supreme Court.

Since the current Supreme Court has held in Morse v. Frederick [wikipedia.org] . that the phrase "Bong Hits 4 Jesus," when displayed in a school setting, is so incredibly dangerous that the First Amendment must be thrown out the window, I think the odds that they'll hold up the First Amendment in this case are less than favorable.

Re:Supreme Court (1)

MonkWB (724056) | more than 5 years ago | (#26944225)

That is a school setting, there are special circumstances there. Young and impressionable. This is about the companies always retaining proof of age. Not the same thing at all.

NOT "companies". Anybody. (5, Informative)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 5 years ago | (#26944359)

Section 2257 says that records must be kept by ANYBODY who creates pornography either intended for distribution, or with equipment or materials that were sold or shipped via interstate commerce. It does not distinguish whether those videos or images were taken for personal reasons.

If you bought your camera on eBay, and you have taken pornographic pictures of your wife or girlfriend, the law very clearly applies to YOU. Which is not reasonable... but which is fact.

Clearly, the law *IS* overbroad.

Re:NOT "companies". Anybody. (1)

lonepirate (1129527) | more than 5 years ago | (#26944573)

agreed, i wonder what kind of BS you face if your records are destroyed in a fire? or corrupted on a hdd, or eaten by rats?

Re:NOT "companies". Anybody. (1)

nick_davison (217681) | more than 5 years ago | (#26944715)

First shot of a set, point your camera at their driver's license.

Takes about 30 seconds.

If it's for personal use, you're going to be keeping the whole set together and will always have that first image with the date stamped files.

There was an interesting article, a while back, about all of the cunning defenses that geeks think of (YANAL [freedom-to-tinker.com] ). As the writer pointed out, being able to win in court is not the same thing as not being dragged through hell in the process.

2257 formalizes something that was already around - child pornography is illegal. Whether it does or doesn't exist, if the cops believe you have images of child porn, they'll still destroy your life in the investigation.

Whether 2257 exists or not, the whole first shot at a driver's license makes sense regardless. That being the case, as bad a law as 2257 is, it doesn't really change much for personal use... You either risk hell and assume it won't happen or you don't. 2257 adds little.

Re:Supreme Court (1)

RepelHistory (1082491) | more than 5 years ago | (#26944679)

It isn't "not the same thing at all." Both are First Amendment cases where the freedom of speech was tossed out the window for the same tired old "think of the children" argument. And current precedent set by Tinker [wikipedia.org] states that just because you're in a school doesn't mean that the First Amendment doesn't apply.

i seen one of these ads (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26944229)

it had a linux user on all fours with his ass in the air and said in big letters "come pound me up my ass, i use linux".

homos are bitches and deserve to die.

Re:i seen one of these ads (1)

RichardJenkins (1362463) | more than 5 years ago | (#26944735)

Be careful. I sometimes post comments like this and forget to hit the 'Post Anonymously'. Check my history. It's embaressing.

Be careful my maladjusted friend...it'll happen to you someday.

So afraid of nudity in america (-1, Flamebait)

Snaller (147050) | more than 5 years ago | (#26944419)

But better to shoot thy neighbor, eh?

How does it affect this: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26944771)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Killer

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>