If bath photos are "child pornography..."

I couldn’t help but think about family members who have fairly innocent photos of their grandkids in the bath (my aunt is one of them).

Now people have been arrested over things like this:

It got me wondering if Ultrasound images could fall foul of this as it’s an image of a naked child.

4 Likes

Eh, I mean, I understand your point if you’re being facetious, but that opens up a whole other completely unrelated can of worms regarding the whole controversy over abortion, as I suppose it would come down to whether or not a fetus in utero can be considered as or equated with “a child” (who has been born). That elephant in the room rather overshadows and detracts from the main (sardonic? I’m assuming) thrust of the point, so there are probably better hypotheticals to consider and better ways to highlight the absurdity of this issue of what qualifies as “child pornography”.

Anyway, getting more to the heart of the matter, honestly on the face of it I don’t think simple nudity in itself should count. The lowest tiers (tier, or couple tiers? I don’t exactly have it memorized, so IDK…) of the COPINE scale (I think that’s what it’s called, if I remember correctly?) really ought not to be classified as such or lumped in with everything else, because not only is there an undeniably essential difference between photographically/visually-depicted child nudity (as well as images that are not inherently, but could potentially be interpreted to be, suggestive) and those which explicitly depict abuse, that type of framework or taxonomy also seems to be inclined towards trying to sort of criminalize possible intent of potential viewers (and/or “possessors”?) of the images in question and primarily basing everything upon that, which gets into so much extremely dubious territory (from innumerable perspectives, at that), for what should be fairly obvious reasons.

It gets rather complicated, though, because (for one thing) clearly it would be counterproductive to inadvertently create a loophole through which a legal market for “softcore child porn” (for lack of a better term–apologies for the ickiness of the phrase) could arise, in which exploitative profiteers could legally take, sell and distribute nude or nearly-nude imagery of children en masse with the nefarious intention of it being perceived/consumed as primarily sexually stimulating. I can easily imagine that happening if the laws were redefined to only prohibit images of outright assault and not nudity etc., and that obviously wouldn’t be a step in the right direction, as taking images and videos of children and disseminating them specifically for that entire purpose is abusive (or at least highly exploitative and totally unethical in any case, semantics aside) in itself. In addition, there’s a whole category of imagery out there that I believe really ought to “count” and fall under whatever legal prohibitions even though it isn’t nude or even mostly-nude in nature, such as the “child modeling” stuff that depicts kids in attire, poses and so forth that any reasonable person could only interpret as being sexually-oriented. The criterion to the effect that nude imagery constitutes child pornography if it lasciviously focuses upon the genitalia of a child used in some jurisdictions makes some sense, but at the end of the day it’s too ambiguous and murky to be of much use.

In a perfect world, the best approach would be to base the definition for legal purposes (of what’s “child pornography” and not, what’s prohibited and not) entirely upon the intent of the actual producers rather than potential viewers/consumers/possessors of the material in question, which would eliminate the entire innocuous bathtime pictures issue and appropriately differentiate between material in which some form of abuse and/or exploitation was involved and that which doesn’t in itself intrinsically entail sexual exploitation of children, but I’m just not sure how that could be practically codified in reality. As things stand currently, I get the overall impression that the prevailing legal litmus test is “if it could potentially be arousing to someone with a sexual interest in children, it’s (potentially) child pornography or ‘child erotica’”, which is fundamentally flawed to say the very least and leads to all manner of absurdities in theory and practice. (As a brief but relevant aside, all of this elucidates why I overwhelmingly prefer the term “CSEM” that I’ve heard used here and there as a substitute for “child pornography”, the lexical replacement of which has been proposed by various CSA prevention advocates for reasons I mostly agree with–“Child Sexually Exploitative Material” clearly and explicitly refers to material that is inherently sexually exploitative of children in some way, either in its production, by its very immediately discernible nature or both.)

Anyway, I can’t pretend to know the answer to this whole conundrum, but it’s readily apparent that what’s in place now regarding the definitions, legal boundaries and so forth is very far from optimal and isn’t actually reasonable or functional at all. Perhaps the only other realistically viable approach is to err on the side of “if it doesn’t explicitly depict abuse (meaning assault), then it’s not prohibited (by default) to view/possess”, while somehow still going after producers of anything that exploits real children with a sexual intent, even though that would give rise to assorted deeply discomfiting possibilities. Considerably more and better-reasoned nuance is required in this area, that much is for certain.

Pressuamble this court case will fail unless they uploaded it to the internet, on some kind of wierd website, or titled it something “suggestive” There are some crimes that are only crimes depending on intention and this should be one of them. If there’s a website called babybathtub.fap i think thats a seroise problem, its basically a CP loophole. But if someone just uploads it to a private facebook page or unlisted youtube video thats ok. I dont think they’re are really any laws about this right now so I guess well just have to see how the court case goes. On the topic of breast feeding there is NO reason why it should be leagal if going around topless isnt.