Quote:

Originally Posted by sitesurfer70 What if you can prove to the court, that the minors actually fooled the 2 Swedes into allowing her to work ( it is a very common practice ). If the cam site could be fooled, don't see why the 2 Swedes can be too. I was told some of the minors are 17 and single moms. I know the court doesn't give a fuck about the logic of it is ok to have sex with a local guy when you are below 18 but is a big no no if you get naked in front of the camera.

In the Traci Lords incident, which was the incident that gave cause to the original §2257 statute — Traci Lords was 15 and obtained a Sate of California Driver's License with her older sister's birth certificate. She used that falsely obtained license as "proof of adult age" to appear in porn films. When the truth of her age came to light there were legal actions that in the end resulted in only the confiscation of all VHS tape inventory ( this was in the 1980s ). The video producers, having accepted this state issued ID unknowingly, were released of criminal culpability.

Of course this was in the United States and this was a one of a kind incident. The producers were not involved is some pattern of child pornography. The Philippine authorities found that the convicted Swedes where guilty of two counts of "human trafficking" involving two separate minors.

From my own viewpoint, as part of the adult webcam broadcast industry, these men were jeopardizing our lawful standing to produce content with adults for adults and further jeopardizing us as child pornographers. They are now unable to do any further harm. I know of one person (American) that did some large cam studio business in the Philippines, in time he was arrested and deported from the Philippines. However, he was careful enough not to employ any minors.

Sexual consent and statutory rape laws have no relevancy in child pornography. Private sexual intercourse and performing on an "adult webcam" are legally two separate issues.