So under the new 2257 laws, CP is actually protected... correct?
 

So I got to thinking and did some checking and reviewing and it occured to me.... CP is PROTECTED under the new laws that are made to prevent it.

Under the new laws... anything "sexually explicit" is required to have proper documentation, ID and blah blah blah. But a picture of a woman posing for let's say... art's sake... is not covered under this law.

So I read some more and ya know... no where in it does it say that I can't have a picture of a 13 year old fully naked... infact, I could make a site full of 13 year olds posing and it would be considered... legal! According to this new law. In fact, the DOJ would have no grounds to knock on my door to ask for ID's of these children. It's "art."


It occured to me that 99% of all CP reports I've seen or heard of on the news, boards or what have you consisted of just children posing for the camera. Sites featuring very young looking people, or actual young people... who pose nude. Nothing "sexually explicit" at all.

This law is supposed to be made to "combat CP" and put an end to these sites but in reality, the site gives the DOJ no grounds to ask them for documents or ID of those children.


I've seen countless discussions on 2257, and countless various angles that people have looked at this law... and granted, it's obvious it's designed to just put us in check and raid us at their leisure.... we all know it.

But this seems like a rather large glaringly wide open hole in the law that I really have not seen much, if any discussion on.

Thoughts?

Naked 13 year olds has always been legal. Ask ASACP.

Wasnt it clear all the time that 2257 has nothing to do with actual cp prevention?

Yes, and I mentioned that... but what I'm getting at is that not only does it not do what they say it's intended to do, but it adds extra protection to those who actually are doing it.

Go to your local bookstore, go to the art section, proceed to find multiple books with naked kids. It is and has been legal.

I know, it wasnt aimed directly at you.

I thought the same thing and think it's as retarded as you do.

It makes no sense as many other things make no sense. So for all those morally corrupt individuals wishing to exploit children, feel safer. All those of us wishing to peddle legit pornography, feel worse.

:2 cents:

So where does the line get drawn because as I said... 99% of what I ever hear about being "busted" is the same thing. Kids posing for a camera.

Which is CP and which isn't?

Sexually explicit. You will not see someone prosecuted (unless they plead guilty for some b/s) for simple nudity.

While thinking of a 50 year old man with hundreds of pics of naked kids is creepy you can not want your government to start making something like this illegal. It has no place in the law and would pave the way for even more rights being taken away. There are people that get off on everything from clothed girls wearing socks to babies in diapers. Should that be banned as well?

So you're in support of the sites featuring teen and pre-teen content then?

Nope. I'm also not in support of government making things illegal because someone might get off to them. It does not belong in the law books, period. Look at the big picture and think 2 steps ahead.

very good point.

While i dont support a website featuring preteen nudity either, ANY new laws limit our freedoms so we must be very carefull of what we make unlawfull.

I don't even agree with preteen or underage non nude model sites. I'm just sick of everything being regulated to death. There is a reason the laws are like they are. Very glad the founding fathers could see past their noses.

the point is that this law got passed to perform the ass backwards objective that it was intended for... even if that was their point.

Sure it's a big burden and blah blah blah.

But it's very design is to put away people who do things right and put away those who do it wrong.

The laws like they are.... are broken.

Very true, too bad the modern leaders can't.

CP -

Has nothing to do with 2257 regulations.

CP has to do with exploiting the child in the said picture or movie. It doesn't have to be sexually explicit, but if the site producers claim that it is art, they need the child's consent and the parent's consent.

Otherwise you can bet your ass someone is going to jail.


I personally think that any media that involves nude kids should stay off the internet and in books for the "Artistic" or "Educational" use that it is intended for.

Stuart,

I think the flaw in your agrument is that 2257 doesn't really make anything legal or illegal in and of itself. It's a record keeping regulation. Anything which was illegal before 2257 is still illegal; it's just that 2257 defines the records and processes by whch you have to abide by for stuff which is clearly legal, for models which are over 18.

CP is illegal by law, 2257 does not change anything about this. 2257 is about keeping records for all the models used and having them available at any moment.

I am sure CP would still be illegal.
But it did seem to justify beastiality.

Is'nt that why they are asking for IDs?

To prove they are 18 or older

Although there was a funny ruling a few years back in NYC when they had new stripclub legislation that allowed minors into stripclubs in a manner similar to what you're arguing here (the rulling by that judge didn't last long however).

K, see....simple lesson in law...

It's not necessary to restate in every law the other things that are already illegal and covered under another law.

But I got an idea....you go on ahead and be the test case and walk up to Mr, Justice and say "But gee, my driver's manual didn't say it was illegal to rob a bank...."

2257 is about record-keeping - 2251 is about sexual exploitation of children.
If you violate 2257 you might go to jail, but if it also turn out that the model is underage you will be sent to jail for additional minimum 10 years for violating 2251 (even if it is only textlinking). I can't really see how CP should be protected then?

No doubt there are other motives about 2257, but you can also look at it this way;
2257 force webmasters to ensure the models promoted sexually are 18 years or older. Yes its a pain, but honestly, how many promoters have actually ensured this before the new 2257?

Yeah, I was thinking about this too after reading 2256 and the definition of sexually explicit. And I also think if they really wanted to combat CP why didn't they approach the people who already support (financially and with actual efforts) preventing it? Those people/companies (mostly legit adult companies) could come up with 100 better ways to help prevent & catch those who participate in stuff like that.

I think we all know the answer is basically that CP prevention really isn't their true intention. We shall see, maybe it was, but they just don't understand the internet or "internets" as George W might say.


~Alli