Yesterday, the US House passed the SAFE Act. No, not that one. Points of note:
- If signed into law, the SAFE Act will require people offering WiFi at their cafe, library, or even allowing their neighbours to use it, who notice that someone appears to have viewed certain dirty cartoons, or pictures of fully-clothed children looking sexy, to immediately make a comprehensive report to John Walsh's CyberTipLine, and retain the images, or face a fine of up to $150,000.
- ISPs or email services have the same obligations, and must store all data relating to the user's account, to be handed over to the authorities.
- The Democrats rushed the legislation through using a mechanism intended for non-controversial legislation. There was no hearing or committee vote. The legislation changed significantly before the vote and was not available for public review.
- The bill passed 409-2. Opposed were Paul Broun (R-Georgia) and Ron Paul (R-Texas). The Senate is next, so consider telling them what you think.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 on Dec 6, 2007 - 98 comments

Teens convicted of producing and possessing child pornography for taking pictures of themselves. [via]
posted by brundlefly on Feb 12, 2007 - 53 comments

A 15 year old girl has been charged with several counts related to "child pornography" for sending out pictures of herself to several people she chatted with. As more and more teens use webcams for all sorts of things from keeping in touch with friends, getting strangers to buy them things from their wishlists and making some $$$ this has caused a little discussion. As she did not "force" herself, how does this intersect with recent attempts to criminalize "virtual" child porn as both situations have at their heart whether the primary issue is coercion/harm or the concepts images themselves. At the risk of "Newsfiltering", I am interested in opinions from a less histrionic group (thats you) than some others who are discussing it.
posted by soulhuntre on Apr 3, 2004 - 77 comments

Is this naturism, photography or soft-core child pornography? If you search for photographers like Sally Mann or Jock Sturges you'll come across this entirely legitimate purveyor of naturist books and videos. In the Fifties and Sixties nudist magazines, like Health and Efficiency, were an excuse for looking at naked bodies. Now that porn is legal, have nudist publications made a comeback as an excuse for looking at photographs of naked children? Their website is itself well concealed - the front page looks innocent enough but, the further you click into it, the more unsettling it becomes. Or are we all becoming to paranoid for our own good? (I'd say NSFW)
posted by Carlos Quevedo on Nov 9, 2002 - 110 comments

Um... can someone explain to me how a parent could do this to their child? Check out some accompanying links and tell me how this isn't child porn and why these parents aren't in prison right now.
posted by tsumo on Dec 30, 2001 - 54 comments

Man goes to jail for writing pornographic thoughts about children in his journal. Read carefully and you'll notice he was on probation. Even so -- doesn't this go too far? Yes, says Philip Jenkins over at nerve.com. (Found on A & L Daily.)
posted by argybarg on Jul 24, 2001 - 33 comments

Third federal circuit upholds criminality of Childless Pornography. Anyone know a good source for jackboots?
posted by baylink on Nov 12, 2000 - 26 comments