zlacker

>>markat+(OP)
Slightly unrelated, but I wonder if a 17-year old child sends her dirty photo to a 18-year old guy she likes, who goes to jail? Just curious how the law works if there is no "abuse" element.

>>codedo+7v
Both of them, still, in some places, although she may get more lenient treatment because she's a juvenile. Other places have cleaned that up in various ways, although I think he's usually still at risk unless he actively turns her in to the Authorities(TM) for sending the picture.

And there's a subset of crusaders (not all of them, admittedly) who will say, with a straight face, that there is abuse involved. To wit, she abused herself by creating and sending the image, and he abused her either by giving her the idea, or by looking at it.

>>Hizonn+NU
Obviously, the laws were originally intended to protect children from malicious adults, but nowadays, when every child has a phone with a camera, they technically are one tap away from committing a crime even without realizing this. Maybe we should do surprise phone inspections at schools, or maybe we should restrict using camera app only to verified adults.

>>codedo+by1
> maybe we should restrict using camera app only to verified adults.

Please tell me that's meant to be a joke.

>>Hizonn+Uz1
A joke? Surely you’re not in favor of children having access to dangerous unrestricted cameras.