While I totally agree with your premise -- child pornography laws have been used in ridiculous ways, hurting teenagers in uncountable ways -- it's really tough to come up with a definition that's narrow enough to not be usable for ridiculous cases while still being able to go after the legitimately bad guys.

For instance, if you define that even if every other qualification in the law is met, it's not child pornography if it's one partner in a legal relationship sending another a nude photo, you still have a couple problems: 1) It's legal, as far as I know, for an adult to date a minor less than 4 years younger than him/her in PA, so you'd make it legal for a 14 year old to send nude photos to an 18 year old -- is this acceptable? 2) What about people that intercept the photos, or something of that sort?

This really isn't a cut-and-dry issue, I believe, but something needs to change.

If, by the people's consensus, it's legal for said 18-year old to have sex with said 14-year old, exactly why would it be illegal for said 18-year old to look at said 14-year old naked, in a photograph or otherwise[1]?

As to your second point, wiretapping laws already exist.

[1] I could actually see an argument along the lines of "the internet never forgets", "having nude photos of yourself online sucks", "14-year olds do stupid things and should be protected from themselves". However, it's not at all clear that destroying the 18-year old's life is the best way to "fix" this. (It's also quite possible to have different rules for supposedly private messages and public distribution.)

The law gets interpreted very strictly and very literally around this subject. In fact, there has actually been a case where a 15-year-old girl was arrested for taking nude photos of herself and sharing them with others via chatrooms. She was charged with trafficking in child pornography, which is somewhat understandable. But she was also charged with exploitation of a minor, which seems a bit silly in this case (unless she had a split personality doing the photography?).

> She was charged with trafficking in child pornography, which is somewhat understandable.

I'm not sure how. The intent (as I understand it) is to protect minors from predators and exploitation, not to give them a criminal record for their own actions - consider that the perpetrator and supposed victim are one and the same in this case. Had they charged others who viewed/shared the photos in the chatrooms, that would be understandable, even if they're minors themselves.

Whether she realized it or not, she became the initial vector for distribution of child pornography the second she shared the photos online. So there is a semi-reasonable argument to be made that she caused some degree of social harm in distributing the photos. I'm not sure which side of the fence I fall on, but at least I could entertain the argument with a straight face.

The exploitation charge, on the other hand, was patently ludicrous.

The social harm of distributing photos is that a minor was harmed.

Jailing a minor is harm!

What utter idiocy.

> So there is a semi-reasonable argument to be made that she caused some degree of social harm in distributing the photos.

Entertaining that argument, the harm though would be to herself. Why should she be essentially doubly punished with membership to the sex offender's list and a criminal record?

But that's not the issue being debated. The issue is tracking the communications of people we disagree with. Let's be crystal clear about that. They're trying to bury the intent in another issue to confuse people and get what they want. The bill will help no child.

You know what harms/kills waaaaaaaay more children?

Cars.

Maybe we should ban pictures of those.

Wow. You hit the nail on the head. Now for the reality. Reality is that human death is ok as long as there is a value to society. Traveling quickly saves time and creates a huge value to people and the government. IE people make more money and pay more taxes than if there were no cars.

This is why speed limits went up awhile back. It's a balancing act. Human life is worth a certain amount to the government but isn't priceless. So, not only will they not ban cars, but not lower speed limits too much.

Imagine the lives saved if there were discriminators on cars that made it so they would not go over 55mph. Lives saved, yes, but productivity lost..

Privacy and global communication networks create tremendous value for society. Unfortunetly people want to throw those out for the sake of incidences that negatively effect an astronomically small number of people.

There's a conflict between the age of criminal culpability and the age of consent. Why aren't these the same ages?

Why not go after child molestation directly? Child pornography used to be considered evidence of molestation, and it's been only recently a bad thing in its own right rather than a way of tracking down people who abuse and molest children.

You can't prove molestation by stealing somebody's computer. Similarly, I'm looking for my keys over here, because the light is better.

What's worse is even depictions of minors can be considered child pornography. I recall reading of one guy who was arrested for a drawing of Bart and Lisa Simpson.

＼(^o^)／ - This emoticon could be illegal if it depicts a minor. (Disclaimer: the emoticon is over 18)

Interesting (for U.S. residents), considering SCOTUS' 2002 opinion in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, which upheld depictions in cases where actual children were not involved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coaliti...

IANAL, but digging around your Wikipedia link suggests that the litmus test here is whether or not the material is to be considered "obscene". The law struct down in the case you linked was worked around by introducing the PROTECT Act, which clarified it as "obscene depictions" of minors.

This so far has not been challenged, as apparently the guy I mentioned in the Simpsons' case just entered a plea bargain:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_cartoon_pornogr...

>"Every right-thinking person abhors child pornography."

Every right-thinking person abhors what they consider to be child pornography.