Norway and kiddie porn

[Ryokan]

http://www.dagbladet.no/dinside/2005/05/20/432263.html

I'm sorry the article is in Norwegian, but I'll give you the highlights.

May 20th the Norwegian authorities passed new laws, strengthening the laws regarding child pornograpgy.

What's new about this law is that it's no longer just illegal to own pictures and movies with child pornography, but it's also illegal to download it. In other words, deleting it from your harddrive, or emptying your temporary internet files directory, won't stop you being prosecuted.

Another thing that's new is that the law doesn't just cover pictures and movies, but also sound and text files.

You can now actually write things down and commit a crime. It's also ironic that child pornography is defined as pornography with someone under the age of 18, while the age of consent in Norway is 16. In other words, you can do anything you want sexually with someone 16-17, but if you write about it, you can be prosecuted and sent to jail for several years.

I can understand the need for laws protecting children from people who want to take advantage of them, but aren't these laws quite draconic?

 

[KelvinG]

So, what would happen if you inadvertently downloaded child porn. And before you laugh, it could happen if you were on a P2P program, and a file had a deceiving name.

 

[Ryokan]

Truth be told, I have no idea what would happen. And I know it can happen, I'm an avid P2P'er.

So far, I don't think they've targeted P2P systems at all, as they're quite difficult to trace. There was a huge international crackdown last year, in which quite a few Norwegians were charged with downloading kiddie porn from a pay site. However, very few of them were prosecuted, because even though it could be proved that they had paid to download porn from the site, few of them actually had kiddie porn on their harddrives, and it couldn't be proved that they hadn't just downladed 'regular' porn.

One of the reasons for the new laws was the failure to prosecute in that bust.

Edit : Spelling

 

[Iconoclast]

So, what would happen if you inadvertently downloaded child porn. And before you laugh, it could happen if you were on a P2P program, and a file had a deceiving name.

It wouldn't even need to be via P2P, the same thing could happen downloading any video file from a web page. Then there's USENET, you don't know what the picture looks like until you download it. Surely there's some provisions in the law for these types of occurrances.

 

[TragicMonkey]

It's also ironic that child pornography is defined as pornography with someone under the age of 18, while the age of consent in Norway is 16. In other words, you can do anything you want sexually with someone 16-17, but if you write about it, you can be prosecuted and sent to jail for several years.

That seems illogical. Presumably the age of consent is when Norwegians are considered capable of handling sex. Having laws that allow individuals of age to have sex, but at the same time punish those who treat them sexually, is inconsistent. It sounds equivalent to granting someone freedom of speech but forbidding anyone to listen.

 

[Bjorn]

Re: Re: Norway and kiddie porn

That seems illogical. Presumably the age of consent is when Norwegians are considered capable of handling sex. Having laws that allow individuals of age to have sex, but at the same time punish those who treat them sexually, is inconsistent. It sounds equivalent to granting someone freedom of speech but forbidding anyone to listen.

The law in fact makes an exception for persons between the age of 16 and 18 if the person has consented and the two of them (e.g. the photographer and the model) are about equal in age and maturity.

"Straffen kan falle bort for den som tar og besitter et bilde av en person mellom 16 og 18 år, dersom denne har gitt sitt samtykke og de to er omtrent jevnbyrdige i alder og utvikling."

 

[TragicMonkey]

Re: Re: Re: Norway and kiddie porn

The law in fact makes an exception for persons between the age of 16 and 18 if the person has consented and the two of them (e.g. the photographer and the model) are about equal in age and maturity.

That seems like plain age discrimination. A 19 year old photographer could then take pornographic pictures of a 17 year old while a 32 year old photographer would be prosecuted for taking the same pictures?

 

[Hawk one]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Norway and kiddie porn

That seems illogical. Presumably the age of consent is when Norwegians are considered capable of handling sex. Having laws that allow individuals of age to have sex, but at the same time punish those who treat them sexually, is inconsistent. It sounds equivalent to granting someone freedom of speech but forbidding anyone to listen.

It may be one illogical consequence, but I do understand its intentions. And I myself do at least partially agree with the laws we're discussing.

I can see that it seems initially contradicting how a person in Norway can have consentual sex at the age of 16, but cannot do nude modeling (or the likes) before 18. But the way I see it, these are actually two different things we're talking about.
The first one is a rather private issue that only involves you and a partner. The second one is an issue that includes a lot more people (including your relatives, as they will find out about this one way or another, especially if you're modeling for for example a well-known porn magazine), and it includes money. I believe the maturity level required for wanting to become a "Playboy bunny" (or any equvalent thereof) is higher than the maturity level required for having sex. You need to be more able taking care of yourself so as to not be taken advantage of, financially or otherwise. But of course, I could be wrong on this.

So far, so good (at least in my eyes). But now we come to the next post by TM:

That seems like plain age discrimination. A 19 year old photographer could then take pornographic pictures of a 17 year old while a 32 year old photographer would be prosecuted for taking the same pictures?

Yes, that is a bit unfortunate. I can (at least sort of) understand the apparent reasoning behind it, though I'm not sure I agree with this reasoning:
The older the photographer are, the more likely is it that he'll be using his general bigger experience in life to take advantage of what is, in comparison, a rather naive 17-year old. While if an 18-year old took pornographic pictures of a 17-year old girl, then it would be more likely to believe that there was for example a boyfriend/girlfriend thing going on, and that they were simply into that kind of thing.

Of course, whether this is actually true or just an assumption the lawmakers were working from is not known to me. It could be one of those things that just seems self-evident, but may turn out not to be. So I need to find out more relevant statistics on this before I can make up my mind.

Of course, it could perhaps be solved if the exception from when to prosecute was worded differently (just a raw suggestion here): "The one being photographed were giving his/her consent, and the pics would not have been made public in any way." As I see it, having it like this would deal with when a couple is simply into taking pics or videos of each other for personal kicks. Maybe it's better, maybe not. Any thoughts on this, people?

 

[Bjorn]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Norway and kiddie porn

That seems like plain age discrimination. A 19 year old photographer could then take pornographic pictures of a 17 year old while a 32 year old photographer would be prosecuted for taking the same pictures?

Isn't it pretty much the same as some of the laws protecting minors in the US and in many other countries? (If both people having consensual sex are the same age, it's not statutory rape. If one of them is older, it is.)

 

[bjornart]

So, what would happen if you inadvertently downloaded child porn. And before you laugh, it could happen if you were on a P2P program, and a file had a deceiving name.

I believe this is covered by the wording of the law:

In Norwegian, my translation below:

Den nye straffelovens paragraf 204 s rammer nå personer som 'produserer, anskaffer, innfører, besitter, overlater til en annen eller mot vederlag eller planmessig gjør seg kjent med fremstilling av seksuelle overgrep mot barn eller fremstilling som seksualiserer barn,'

The new paragraph 204 of the penal code now affects persons who 'produce, aquire, introduce, possess, transfers to another person, or for compensation or by plan "familiarizes him/herself"* with, portrayals of sexual abuse of children or portrayals that sexualise children,'

Not perfect English, but I've tried to be as accurate as possible with a legalese text. "Accidentally" downloading child porn is covered by "by plan", although you could get in trouble if, for instance, you buy ordinary porn from a site that also sells child porn.

*odd legal language "make yourself familiar with" for 'reads, views, listens to, etc.'

 

[CBL4]

In Oregon, it is legal for women or girls of any age to go topless. However, it is illegal for anyone to take a picture of a topless girl under the age of 18 because that would be child pornography.

(Clearly exceptions are made for babies but the case in point was about a 16 year old who was topless in a parklike setting.)

CBL

 

[Ryokan]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Norway and kiddie porn

That seems like plain age discrimination. A 19 year old photographer could then take pornographic pictures of a 17 year old while a 32 year old photographer would be prosecuted for taking the same pictures?

I think the irony is worse that I can do whatever I want sexually with a 17-year-old, but if I look at a picture of her nude, I can go to prison for it.

But I can understand that part of the law, that's not what I think is bad.

It's the text file thing. I can actually read myself into prison. Or open up notepad and write myself to prison. It can easily be argued that pornographic pictures and movies can hurt the young person who participates in it, but fiction can't hurt anyone, can it? Sounds like a witch hunt with the Thought Police in charge, if you ask me.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Norway and kiddie porn

I think the irony is worse that I can do whatever I want sexually with a 17-year-old, but if I look at a picture of her nude, I can go to prison for it.

But I can understand that part of the law, that's not what I think is bad.

It's the text file thing. I can actually read myself into prison. Or open up notepad and write myself to prison. It can easily be argued that pornographic pictures and movies can hurt the young person who participates in it, but fiction can't hurt anyone, can it? Sounds like a witch hunt with the Thought Police in charge, if you ask me.

Is Romeo and Juliet going to get anyone in trouble? She was 14.

 

[geni]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Norway and kiddie porn

It's the text file thing. I can actually read myself into prison. Or open up notepad and write myself to prison. It can easily be argued that pornographic pictures and movies can hurt the young person who participates in it, but fiction can't hurt anyone, can it? Sounds like a witch hunt with the Thought Police in charge, if you ask me.

The law has been like that in the UK for time.

 

[Ryokan]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Norway and kiddie porn

Is Romeo and Juliet going to get anyone in trouble? She was 14.

How about the bible? Mary was 12 when the holy spirit knocked her up

But what is next? Banning the description of all illegal activities in the written form?

 

[TragicMonkey]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Norway and kiddie porn

How about the bible? Mary was 12 when the holy spirit knocked her up

But what is next? Banning the description of all illegal activities in the written form?

Which reminds me! Yesterday the other monkeys and I went to the beach and ******* ***** and ***** down to the ****, then we ******* in the ***** and the *****. Holy ****, that was a lot of *****! And the cops haven't a clue!

(Anecdote edited to prevent Norwegian readers from being prosecuted. Trust me, though, it was a thrilling story of debauchery and crime.)

 

[Ed]

Could it be that the powers that be in Norway are looking to be consistant with the laws of other countries? I recall persons/person being convicted of child rape or somesuch after he/them came back from Thailand.

 

[Ryokan]

Could it be that the powers that be in Norway are looking to be consistant with the laws of other countries? I recall persons/person being convicted of child rape or somesuch after he/them came back from Thailand.

Or the Phillipines...

But there's a difference between raping a child and reading about it. Or is it just me?

 

[TragicMonkey]

But there's a difference between raping a child and reading about it. Or is it just me?

That raises the whole issue of fiction. If the work, visual or literary, is fictional, not real, then can it be prosecutable as pornography? No real people would have been hurt in its creation, so it would mean the illegality lies in the representation of an act regardless of its reality.

And what about misleading appearances? What if someone had what looked like child porn, but the apparent 15 year old was actually a young-looking 21? Would it be illegal if people thought it was an underaged model, but wasn't? What if they knew it was a 21 year old, but liked it because he/she looked younger?

The difficulty in drawing clear legal lines around such matters are that a great deal seems to depend on what the creator, purveyor, and purchaser believe, know, or think. This seems extremely hazy.

There was a minor scandal, short-lived, in one of my classes a couple of years ago at technical school. One of the students (no, it wasn't me) was a kinda creepy guy. He had as his computer's desktop "wallpaper" an image from some obscure anime he liked, of what looked like a rather curiously-dressed but very young-looking cartoon girl. The furor errupted over "little girl porn", but at once questions arose: it was an unrealistic cartoon image for starters. Could that count as real life human child pornography? And to complicate matters, the creepy guy explained that in the story, the character resembles a little girl but is a thousand years old, which would seem to put her well over the age of consent. But it still looked like a little girl. Was it art? Was it porn? Was it excused by being a cartoon? Or was it excused because it was fictional? Or because the fictional character had an unreasonable age? Or was it inexcusable? Was there the danger that the guy who likes cartoon images of underage-looking girls was in fact a pedophile, or warming up to be one, and this was just a step on the path or a slightly-more-innocuous facet?

Damned if I know the answer to any of those questions. He changed his desktop to avoid further controversy, and everyone let it drop. I found the whole thing disturbing, but can't really formulate a firm and decisive rule to determine what is and isn't pornography. Neither can most courts, though.

 

[Ryokan]

Yeah, the whole deal about anime porn and underage girls is a whole other discussion.

But it's funny that Japanese porn games these days have a disclaimer that all girls depicted in the games are 18 and above

(Please, don't ask me how I know)