Today I Learned
What did you learn today? Share it with us!
We learn something new every day. This is a community dedicated to informing each other and helping to spread knowledge.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must begin with TIL. Linking to a source of info is optional, but highly recommended as it helps to spark discussion.
** Posts must be about an actual fact that you have learned, but it doesn't matter if you learned it today. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.**
Rule 2- Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding non-TIL posts.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-TIL posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.
If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.
Partnered Communities
You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.
Community Moderation
For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.
view the rest of the comments
I have an "umm what about" regarding "of all ages."
Say a 15 year old girl decides to walk topless down main street. Is everyone on that street who has a security camera running going to be convicted of making child porn?
I don't trust the legislature to have been competent enough to edit the rest of the code to reflect that change nor do I trust the thin blue line punisher sticker crowd to pass up something they can portray as a crime.
To answer your question seriously, no. Having pictures or videos of a 15 year olds breast is not by default porn, it's only porn once it's in a sexual context.
It's porn if the state wants to harass you for something.
Not just the state. Due process does not exist here, the accusation of sexual misconduct is often enough to destroy someone's life. So it's anyone who chooses to accuse him of something.
So.. if i would look at it ... O nice i know that store she walks by = pic is safe O nice tits i gonna jerk off to it = pic is porn ?
Than one pic can be porn for one and safe for an other. I must be missing something.
Intent
Was the picture taken for sexual intent?
Security camera taking a video of a topless 15 year old intent was not produce a pornographic image.
You as the security guard saving the picture of later...your intent is to make it sexual.
Now if you saved the picture because you needed to figure out which store the topless 15 year old was by. Your intent is to not make it sexual so that would be fine.
You make sense, and I agree, but until kids are no longer jailed or put on sex offender lists for innocent sexting, I'm not going to assume US police officers and the US justice system being as reasoned as you are
Does "in a sexual context" have a falsifiable definition? I mean, here's an article from the American Bar Association journal about a man who was arrested and deported for "child sexual abuse" for having photos printed of himself kissing his infant daughter after a bath.
The accuser was the photo lab tech. After the man was arrested and deported, his wife was arrested, their child was removed from them, then the investigation took the whole roll of film into consideration and found there was no child abuse, this was photographic evidence of loving parents caring for their child. "Sexual context" indeed.
I envision a future where a business owner puts up security cameras around his shop, those security cameras send their video to "The Cloud," an underage girl walks by topless in view of those video cameras, as is her legal right to do so, a closed-source unauditable CSAM detection algorithm running on "The Cloud" flags the video as CSAM, and the business owner gets arrested, his business and/or home destroyed or even killed before an investigation determines no wrongdoing. Because we put the time for reasonableness after the bodies have cooled. We check to see if it's a false positive after the "arrest" has been made. THAT's the ultimate problem I have here.
I mean that's alot of effort to go through when they could just as easily plant CSM on someone if they wanted to. I understand the paranoia people have, but there are easier ways to fuck someone's life up.
You are sexualizing nudity. This is the bulk of the problem.
No (s)he's not, this is VERY pragmatic. US police officers love pushing their authority up your rear end given the chance, and if you even accidentally recorded a topless minor, you could be in for.some fun.
Me personally, I have no particular need for legislated prudishness. I don't see much of a difference between the Taliban requiring women to wear a headscarf than whatever red state requiring women to wear a top. A lot of that nonsense is done to enforce a particular religion, and I personally want all religions to be thrown in the toilet with all the other worthless assgarbage.
There was a point in time when things such as bikinis and miniskirts were seen as scandalously immodest. The people who saw them that way are mostly dead now and we can move on, which is what will ultimately happen here. Some women will start going topless to the beach, the newspapers will write some stories about it, there'll be some arrests, there will be some court cases, there will be some laws passed, and then it'll settle in as just a thing people do sometimes.
The problem I have is that I think people with cameras are going to be punished for incidentally filming topless girls in ways they're not for incidentally filming topless boys. Shall I illustrate with an example?
Consider this video of a walking tour of Panama City Beach, Florida. . There are a lot of videos like this, tours of various places around the world, they're filmed in public places, often from streets, sidewalks etc. There's a lengthy segment where the cameraperson walks down the beach and records several boys and men without shirts on. The video is on Youtube, uncensored and monetized. No one anywhere has a problem with this because we categorically do not consider male barechestedness to be nudity.
The argument here is women and girls should be allowed to be barechested anywhere men and boys are. Okay, so the instant we make that change, we also need to change the rules that say it's not okay to see, photograph, record or broadcast barechested women and girls. It needs to be equally okay to upload pictures of barechested women and girls to Youtube without censor bars or blurs. Because then it becomes "when he does it it's not nudity, when she does it, it's not considered nudity but it is still in fact nudity." You don't get to require people in public to avert their gaze.
There is no such thing as child porn as porn requires consent, it's called child sexual exploitation materials.
The term "child" is ageist, the preferred term is temporally different.