You are here18 and 19 are still 'Teen', Dad...
18 and 19 are still 'Teen', Dad...
About this comment: http://www.herdofcats.ca/?q=node/1285#comment-2621
First, I agree that 18 and 19 can still be term 'teen'.
Welcome to the wonderful world of governements trying to solve a problem by using a hell of a wide brush. Criminal Code sec 163.1 ( Click here if you want to see the whole thing) loves to create a gray area:
(5) It is not a defence to a charge under subsection (2) in respect of a visual representation that the accused believed that a person shown in the representation that is alleged to constitute child pornography was or was depicted as being eighteen years of age or more unless the accused took all reasonable steps to ascertain the age of that person and took all reasonable steps to ensure that, where the person was eighteen years of age or more, the representation did not depict that person as being under the age of eighteen years.
In other words: guilty until proven innocent.
Check that last sentence: "...the representation did not depict that person as being under the age of eighteen years."
So, the first picture I removed from that article had the caption "This 14-year old...". That's not grey anymore, that smack into 163.1
The second picture I removed had a title "Toothbrush Teens". That's grey. Now the law states that I have to "make sure". Lovely.
Believe me, if the site was restricted via passwords, I would not have cared one bit, but we are viewable at large, and that includes the US. Have you even *seen* the extradition laws of the US ?? It's also quite true that the RCMP should not give a shit about us as a site, but I have participated in FBI and RCMP busts, and let me tell you that the net they cast is as wide as possible. It's all about the numbers given to the news agencies. I have seen dads end up on the Child Offenders list for putting up pictures of their children on their websites, and just because they were co-workers of a member of a real pedophile network. Sure, the judge finally accepted that the pictures were OK, and "pardoned" the dad, but once you are on the CO list you never really come off of it.
And it's 10 years in the clink if you are found guilty of distributing *any* kind of child porno material.
Guess why I'm being nit-picky :-)
-
- Login to post comments
- 694 reads
Regarding the first BANNED photo:
1) The girl in the photo is not even naked, let alone performing a sexual act
and...
2) The caption was part of the image, as typed by the author(s) of the original story at popular satirical news site www.utterpants.co.uk
which shouldn't be taken as fact because...
C) The toothbrushes in both photos were clearly added in Photoshop, to create a satirical "photo illustration".
Just sayin'.
I also think the site is pushing NSFW. While I enjoy the humour and the titillation to a certain extent, it does make it hard to partake at work, where I am on most of the time because really, why would I be working?
I guess "PORN" or "SEX" in the title doesn't cover it anymore... although I guess that last pic did go above and beyond the usual mild titillation for some...
About sex and porn is one thing. Having pictures of half naked grandma's is something else. That can get me fired.
At least you can't get fired NOT WORKING, eh?
What is this work of which you speak?
To have a link preceeded with NSFW to any pictures that could be construed as such rather than embeding them in the article.
I pretty much only view/post stuff on this site while on breaks at work. Ergo, it is a bit of a shock when I go to the home page and see a pic of an old naked lady, lol.