Is this really child pornography?

[james&olya 1,121]

Incredibly poor taste? Yes.

Exploitive of the children's images? Yes.

Porno? No.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Incredibly poor taste? Yes.

Exploitive of the children's images? Yes.

Porno? No.

Agreed.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

No.

Do you think someone should go to prison for 20 years for this?

why would i care what some moron is doing with random videos?

[^_^ 5,021]

why would i care what some moron is doing with random videos?

ADMIT IT!!!!!!!! ADMIT IT!!!!!!!!! GODDAMN YOU PAUL ADMIT YOU'RE AN ALIEN PENGUIN SEEKING TO VANQUISH HUMANITY USING YOUR SECRET PC SOCIALIST CENSOR GUN!!!!!!!! JUST ADMIT IT BECAUSE WE'RE ON TO YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!

[VanessaTony 3,567]

Yes it's sexualisation of children so it's child porn. Pornography is defined as "creative activity (writing or pictures or films etc.) of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire"... and that certainly appears to fit the bill from the description.

I don't think he should go to jail for 20 years, but he should get a warning and some sort of probation for it. I just can't see how he thought it was funny, or a prank to sexualise children like that. If it was my children in that video I would be appalled and I would want him charged.

Edited March 9, 2011 by Vanessa&Tony

[^_^ 5,021]

Yes it's sexualisation of children so it's child porn.

I don't think he should go to jail for 20 years, but he should get a warning and some sort of probation for it. I just can't see how he thought it was funny, or a prank to sexualise children like that. If it was my children in that video i would be appalled and I would want him charged.

The law should be above your emotions, you know.

[VanessaTony 3,567]

The law should be above your emotions, you know.

I edited after you started your reply. Pornography is defined as: "creative activity (writing or pictures or films etc.) of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire". That fits the description of the video. That his INTENT was pure could be true, but you'd have to rely solely on what he's saying, and the video sings a different tune.

I think the other issue is no NORMAL person would think it's funny. What normal person thinks it's funny to pretend kids are listening to a sexual song and "enjoying" their facial responses to said sexual lyrics... no that's not funny. It's creepy.

[^_^ 5,021]

Kids being outraged at a dirty song is designed to turn people on?

That's insane.

[james&olya 1,121]

I edited after you started your reply. Pornography is defined as: "creative activity (writing or pictures or films etc.) of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire". That fits the description of the video. That his INTENT was pure could be true, but you'd have to rely solely on what he's saying, and the video sings a different tune.

I think the other issue is no NORMAL person would think it's funny. What normal person thinks it's funny to pretend kids are listening to a sexual song and "enjoying" their facial responses to said sexual lyrics... no that's not funny. It's creepy.

Legislating morality, like defining legally acceptable humor, is the sort of 'big brother' kind of government that can too easily morph into tyranny! The only legally based justification for child porn laws has to do with protecting the right of children to not be harmed by it. What people think is funny is nobody elses business, certainly not the government's! But I have to agree that I find the stuff referred to here DISGUSTING! But not sure I want government trying to decide what should be banned.

[Danno 1,228]

Legislating morality, like defining legally acceptable humor, is the sort of 'big brother' kind of government that can too easily morph into tyranny! The only legally based justification for child porn laws has to do with protecting the right of children to not be harmed by it. What people think is funny is nobody elses business, certainly not the government's! But I have to agree that I find the stuff referred to here DISGUSTING! But not sure I want government trying to decide what should be banned.

- We have been doing the "Legislating Morality" thing since the Pilgrims washed ashore without -Morphing into t tyranny.

-CHild porn laws are not singularly based on "protecting children from being harmed"... unless you apply that in a very broad sense.

-The Governments case has nothing to do with "what people think is funny" and every thing to do with using minors in illegal activity.

[Peikko 1,575]

Kids being outraged at a dirty song is designed to turn people on?

That's insane.

There are a lot of things that turn people on that I would describe as insane. I would imagine in this instance the person could be charged with creating pornography that is likely to appeal to and be used by a pedophile, but not any form of physical endangerment or actual physical harm.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

Pornography is defined as "creative activity (writing or pictures or films etc.) of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire"... and that certainly appears to fit the bill from the description.

That's a dictionary definition -- the law is more nuanced here (particularly as it concerns so-called "virtual child pornography"), and that definition totally ignores the Miller test. Just putting down a placemarker to come back to this later today with a little more mental noodling about. Too much on this morning to get to it!