Hacker News Reader

Comment by bestes | Hacker News Reader

Minors are not capable of making sound decisions, which is why they should be treated differently (and usually are). But, I disagree that this is the core issue. I believe that this is not a crime. At all. Not even a little bit. The idea that it is illegal for those under 18 to do anything sexual is wrong. It moves to preposterous when you start calling them sex offenders. Why? Because it is a natural and normal part of growing up. The body secrets huge amounts of testosterone/estrogen during puberty. Humans are designed/programmed/whatever to start thinking about sex at this point. Finally, because kids are actually people too. They do get to make decisions. Small ones at first, but bigger ones later. A 17-year-old that is going out with an 18-year-old should not have to break up with their significant other simply because of the magical 18th birthday.

View on HN

great post!

I think the kid puts it best (and ironically in an extremely mature way) when he talks about how a split second decision screwed it all up. We talk about underage and minors because we are a lot older - but forget that to them that age divide is non-existant. At home with the guys, testosterone going, recieve a text from a girl that sounds a bit sexy - hey we've all done it. Difference is where it's "allowed" for us - for them it, apprently, isnt. Leaving the images on screen or w/e is, obviously, very thick but I struggle to see a serious crime. The boy's parents approach seemed the best of the lot......

Yes, nail whoever actually posted them publicly online (and perhaps lightly reprimand the guy for leaving his inbox open). That is the real crime - regardless of the age of the victim.

(ps sorry about spamming this topic: strong opinions here :D shout if it's too much)

Apparently him leaving the inbox open wasn't what spread them she sent those same pictures to other guys.

They should code into law the divide by 2 and add 14 rule :-)

Aside that viewpoint, "Child Porn" in many statutes include fully clothed youngsters doing what is 'not the norm for that age group'.

Pretty much any image of people under 18 can be considered Child Porn if that jury thinks so.

Actually not at all: well, definitely not in the UK.

Here we use the Copine scale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copine_scale)

It's important to note the ONLY classification that images of clothed children can fall into is #1 (the least "worst" case). However to actually qualify the poses would have to be very sexually sxplicit. Child underwear models, for example, wouldnt normally get categorised there (obviously if there is more extreme indecent material they WOULD be appended as "relevant" images).

Your right the jury will be shown an image and if it has a child in it they will cry "OMG CP" but fortunately experts analyse all of the data first and ensure only real indecent images make it to the trial :)

I cant say 100% for the US but I believe things work in the same way.

EDIT; a colleague pointed me at this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_Test). Apparently in the US you lot are completely unable to make use of a simpel classification scale (I jest, I jest) so things are less cut and dried. In which case I guess your point stands.

I prefer our way.

Yes, the American way is essentially "I'll know it when I see it, so gimme more to look at!"

Sigh.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com