Join 3,574 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Stickam is for Porn!
August 6, 2007 7:18 AM   Subscribe

onoes! teenz on teh pr0n webs! It's been a year since I posted about Stickam, and in that time, one would be naïve to think that a community of unmoderated videos broadcast live from the private and semi-anonymous bedrooms of the world would not result in epic lulz (nsfw). To no one's surprise, disgruntled Stickam ex-VP Alex Becker says Stickam shares office space, staff, and equipment with live pornographic video providers -- this via NYT tech writer Brad Stone. Cue the "think of the CHILDRUNZ!" moral panic. But popular websites being related to or backed up by prurient interest are nothing new: Wikipeda predecessor Bomis was once accused of having "softore porn" in its "Babes" section, and of course everyone knows porn drives technology. What do you think the internet is for? But if you use Stickam and this bothers you, the burgeoning field of live embeddable Flash-based webcam video streaming is rife with alternatives: uStream.tv, Justin.tv, BlogTV, Mogulus, and Operator11, just to name some -- but there'll be naked girls on those too. I guarantee it.
posted by brownpau (41 comments total) 6 users marked this as a favorite

 
When I was a kid, we watched scrambled pay-per-view softcore channels with socks on our dicks, and we liked it!
posted by fungible at 7:23 AM on August 6, 2007 [2 favorites]


Brad Stone: our favorite person ever.
posted by jmhodges at 7:23 AM on August 6, 2007


Thanks for just presenting the facts with no editorializing.
posted by DU at 7:24 AM on August 6, 2007


Question: if someone underage independently disseminates nude pictures of themselves - does that make them guilty of trafficking in CP?
posted by chlorus at 7:34 AM on August 6, 2007


chlorus: Yes. The thinking is twofold: first, the pictures still, ahem, stimulate the market for regular child pornography, and second, the underage person cannot legally consent to the distribution of the pictures.

There is the hypothetical of an underage person who takes pictures of themselves, waits until they're of age, and then distributes them, but that hasn't come up yet. In any event, the person would have to decided to do all of this entirely of their own accord, which seems unlikely.
posted by jedicus at 7:39 AM on August 6, 2007


I should add, the underage person would be technically guilty. In all likelihood the prosecutor would go after the purchasers / downloaders, not the producer. This is similar to so-called 'romeo & juliet' child sex cases where both children are below the age of consent. Technically both are guilty of a sex offense, but in general only one (typically the male or the older child) is prosecuted.
posted by jedicus at 7:41 AM on August 6, 2007


When I was a kid, we watched scrambled pay-per-view softcore channels with socks on our dicks, and we liked it!

Hell, I did that, and the TV had bad verical hold, too. So now the sight of a naked woman can only arouse me if I cross my eyes and nod my head rapidly.
posted by jonmc at 7:55 AM on August 6, 2007 [7 favorites]


I'm not entirely sure what this post is about, but that third link sure does have a bloody fetus.
posted by roll truck roll at 8:14 AM on August 6, 2007


I see very little epic lulz. Where are the lulz?
posted by schroedinger at 8:18 AM on August 6, 2007


At least one girl has been prosecuted for "self abuse". Parents should keep their digital photography equipment locked safely away from teenagers if they want to minimize the risk that illegal photographs will be taken.
posted by Human Flesh at 8:42 AM on August 6, 2007


How long until people realize that even "ironic" use of internet-speak (lulz, etc) is not funny and not clever?

Chlorus -- in Canada, the self-creation of child pornography for personal (ie, the minor's own) use is in fact legal, however transmission of that material would no longer be for personal use, and would therefore be a violation of the criminal code prohibitions against child porn. Not sure if this wrinkle is also true in other jurisdictions, but I doubt it.
posted by modernnomad at 8:47 AM on August 6, 2007


in Canada, the self-creation of child pornography for personal (ie, the minor's own) use

So it's okay to get aroused by looking at yourself naked?
posted by jonmc at 8:50 AM on August 6, 2007


How long until people realize that even "ironic" use of internet-speak (lulz, etc) is not funny and not clever?

IM IN UR METAFILTRZ, HARSHING UR MELLOW
posted by brownpau at 8:52 AM on August 6, 2007 [2 favorites]


chlorus: Yes. The thinking is twofold: first, the pictures still, ahem, stimulate the market for regular child pornography, and second, the underage person cannot legally consent to the distribution of the pictures.

The can consent, and in fact can be prosecuted for distributing child porn if they do self-film. The laws we have are particularly idiotic.
posted by delmoi at 8:55 AM on August 6, 2007


I should add, the underage person would be technically guilty. In all likelihood the prosecutor would go after the purchasers / downloaders, not the producer.

Unfortunately "all likelihood" does not mean "all cases" I know of a couple of cases where minors have been prosecuted for taking naked pictures of themselves.
posted by delmoi at 8:57 AM on August 6, 2007


in Canada, the self-creation of child pornography for personal (ie, the minor's own) use

So it's okay to get aroused by looking at yourself naked?


It means that a teenage couple in Canada can no longer be charged for filming themselves having sex, which under strict readings of the previous law (and by the sounds of it, the current laws in the US) would have been possible. See R. v. Sharpe.
posted by modernnomad at 9:12 AM on August 6, 2007


I know of a couple of cases where minors have been prosecuted for taking naked pictures of themselves.
posted by delmoi at 10:57 AM on August 6


We live in a bizarre world.
posted by Ynoxas at 9:14 AM on August 6, 2007


And honestly, "child pornography" should end at about age 12.

Just like there is a difference between child rape and statutory rape. Although both are crimes, they are very different crimes. And one shouldn't even be a crime, in my opinion.

Having some 17 year old girl grind to Usher and pull her panties down on her webcam is not "child pornography".

I was once a teenager. I knew a whole lot of teenagers. Teenagers are filthy, perverted, twisted, sick animals. And don't even get me started on the boys.
posted by Ynoxas at 9:23 AM on August 6, 2007


Make mine kidney, with a side order of Barely Legal please.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 9:24 AM on August 6, 2007


"Just like there is a difference between child rape and statutory rape. Although both are crimes, they are very different crimes. And one shouldn't even be a crime, in my opinion."

Common sense on the internet?

Report to the Thought Crime Division, sir.
posted by drstein at 10:21 AM on August 6, 2007


It's fairly rediculous that anyone cares. If your a parent, you should try to participate tangentially in your childs online activities. Here are a few hints :

1) Buy them a sim locked mobile phone on a contract, which you pay for. Ask them about out of state calls even if those calls don't cost any more.

2) Talk to them about stuff online : Ask them what the look at online. Email them cool links from YouTube, MeFi, etc., even raunchy ones.

3) Be the parent all their friends like. Let them stay out late & throw small parties at home. Buy a pool table.

4) Use IM for some family communication. Know their accounts on all the major IM networks.

5) Know about their MySpace etc. page. Have your own page linking theirs.

6) But don't be too invasive about it.

The kids with the cool but carring and involved but not invasive parents never get into really big trouble.
posted by jeffburdges at 10:39 AM on August 6, 2007


And honestly, "child pornography" should end at about age 12.

CHILD PORN HOUND SPOTTED
posted by Mikey-San at 10:55 AM on August 6, 2007


Also, provide them with wine coolers.
posted by rob paxon at 11:10 AM on August 6, 2007


*7)
posted by rob paxon at 11:13 AM on August 6, 2007


jeffburdges, I agree with pretty much all but #3 on your list. I know what my kids are into, I'm involved, but I don't allow small parties in my house and I am probably not the most popular parent.

The parents of some underage children who WERE lost two of their kids recently. They allowed underage drinking at a graduation party for their-almost 18 yo daughter (legal drinking age is 21). Their daughter went out on a scooter with her boyfriend, without helmets or a headlight, late at night as the party was ending, and she and her bf were both killed by another teen from the party, racing against them in his car down a residential road. The kids on the scooter hit a mailbox, the stone kind, and were killed instantly. The driver of the car had minor injuries from also running off the road. The (in my opinion idiotic) parents has just lost their son a couple years before in his own drunk driving incident after allowing him to party at their house (no lessons learned, apparently) and are now being sued by families whose kids attended the party that led to the latest deaths.

I don't agree with the lawsuits--you should know where your kids are and what's going on, and if anything hopefully your kids will have learned a tragic lesson from this--but sometimes you can be TOO much of a friend to your kids. You do have to remember who the parent is.
posted by misha at 11:22 AM on August 6, 2007 [1 favorite]


Question: if someone underage independently disseminates nude pictures of themselves - does that make them guilty of trafficking in CP?

Absolutely. And rightfully so! We must to protect our children from molesting themselves and the best way to do that is to throw them in jail or make them register as sex offenders.

Self-molestation is going to be the next big crime-wave of the 21st century. We're going to need an entire police-and-corrections-apparatus in place to handle the thousands of children who are viciously and brutally exploited by themselves. Only then will our children be safe from their own heinous, predatory selves.

Also, I've taken note of the posters on this thread who question our nation's dedication to protecting our children and forwarded their information to the FBI. People with nothing to hide have nothing to fear, after all.
posted by Avenger at 11:24 AM on August 6, 2007


misha - that's a tragedy, for sure, but jeffburdges didn't say anything about allowing his kids, or his kids' friends, to drink at his house. Party doesn't necessarily equal alcohol.

By the way, in that third link, a few pages in, there are small pics of topless girls. Judging by the content of this post, and that link (which seems to be a message board about some kind of contest to get teenage girls to flash, and more, on their webcams), there's a good chance that the topless girls are under 18. Probably not something anyone wants to be caught looking at, even by accident.
posted by cilantro at 1:14 PM on August 6, 2007


Could someone please tell me what the hell a lulz is?
posted by Afroblanco at 1:20 PM on August 6, 2007


Could someone please tell me what the hell a lulz is?

It's either a half-naked teenage girl with nice breasts or a fetus. Or both. According to that link.
posted by maxwelton at 1:48 PM on August 6, 2007


Softore Porn, starring Galena
posted by BrotherCaine at 2:11 PM on August 6, 2007


Could someone please tell me what the hell a lulz is?

It's a corruption of LOL, which means "laugh out loud."
posted by Sticherbeast at 2:22 PM on August 6, 2007


By the way, I'm not trying to be condescending - I was referencing this.
posted by Sticherbeast at 2:27 PM on August 6, 2007


Dammit I was just about to write *van explodes* or something equally witty to show the world I got the reference and now everything's ruined!
posted by soundofsuburbia at 2:29 PM on August 6, 2007


Dammit I was just about to write *van explodes* or something equally witty to show the world I got the reference and now everything's ruined!

Sorry about that - I was afraid someone would reply back "thanks, asshole, I know what LOL means," and then the joke would be ruined anyway.

DOGS CURTAINS ETC.
posted by Sticherbeast at 2:34 PM on August 6, 2007


so a lulz is something that's supposed to be funny?
posted by Afroblanco at 2:56 PM on August 6, 2007


so a lulz is something that's supposed to be funny?

"Lulz" would be the reaction one would have to something funny. Think of it as "occurrences of laughing out loud."
posted by Sticherbeast at 3:00 PM on August 6, 2007


This is the second time one of these chan sites has been posted to Metafilter in as many weeks, I believe, and I'm all the more convinced that humankind is fundamentally broken and needs ending. Or at the very least, that the Internet has been a very, very, very, very bad thing. We stopped being remotely human, and we're becoming complete and utter psychopaths.

Read a thread like this, where some of these punks- probably a bunch of teenagers- fulfilled their Dahmeresque true natures. Those people are absolutely psychopaths, as sure as Gacy or Gein. They are human, yet not human. Our world is surely ending, for the power of our technology is being married to the worst scum we've seen in millenia.

I think I've turned a corner: we need complete removal of all anonymity. Let everyone know everything everyone everywhere is ever doing. The people typing those things- everyone, EVERYONE in their life should know they type those, they should have to face every friend, every teacher or parent or potential girlfriend/boyfriend and have those people turn away in disgust at their actions.

I laughed at that Fox report when it was posted, but now... now I think we need to pull the covers back. Let's make everything people do online public, let's make EVERYTHING knowable. Would any of these people act like this if they knew they'd be known? Would they do these things if it wasn't some juvenile psychopathic monster showing its true colors on an anonymous forum? Nope- they'd still be monsters, but they'd hold it all in check.

I hate you all.
posted by hincandenza at 7:04 PM on August 6, 2007


Read a thread like this

404chan.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 7:10 PM on August 6, 2007


There is something about 4chan that is just so end-of-the-world. And it's not like I (or any of us here) haven't been around the block on the whole on-line community thing -- BBSes, Usenet, IRC, etc. But I honestly have no idea what these people are talking about, how they organize their site, or why they write in pidgin english. Is this generational? Are they all 14 years old? This somehow traces back to the whole Stile thing, right? I never understood that either.
posted by Mid at 7:42 PM on August 6, 2007


hincandenza, I'm kinda with you, and yet here you and I sit behind monikers on an community weblog.

I'm not convinced that everything I do online needs to be known by everyone else. By the same token, the most civilized internet resources I use require actual names. Metafilter is absolutely unique among anonymous sites I've been on in being reasonably civil.
posted by maxwelton at 11:02 PM on August 6, 2007


4chan is how a Ballard novel about the internet would end.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 2:10 PM on August 7, 2007


« Older No doubt many of you, like me, have recently seen ...   |   The Black Sites.... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments