Kidnapable82 wrote:Well, a friend of a friend was charged with pornography, because the person in the videos and photos were under 18. I don't recall if they were clothed or not, I was just told about the charge. I would just use it as a side of caution.
But I think it's a fine line. I mean, there are underage people that post photos on here that have gags and whatnot, and I 101% guarantee you that adults look at them. But this site is still open and running, so I would venture a guess to say as long as what you see is not nudity, you are fine.
drawscore wrote:A picture, photo, drawing, image, depiction, illustration, or vidcap of a (clothed) child or teenager tied up (and gagged), is not, in and of itself, pornographic. If it was, there could be no TV shows or movies where the snoopy kid gets captured by outlaws or Indians, or kidnapped.
This illustration was taken from a coloring book, marketed to kids. The other is from a comic book, also marketed to kids. Are either or both, pornographic? I don't think so, and apparently, the authorities don't, either. If they did the coloring book and comic book could not be sold.
Drawscore
Liz wrote:Have a look here:
18 U.S. Code § 2256. See esp. section 2.
(I assume you meant you lived in the USA when you wrote that you lived in America).
Neither latex nor fetish/bondage gear is mentioned there. It would be a bit weird to say just by wearing certain clothes it becomes pornography. So latex clothes are clearly unproblematic as long as they cover genitals. Bondage and gags should be okay too. Because the only category that would be somewhat related is section 2 B III "sadistic or masochistic abuse" but this is far-fetched. However keep in mind that as stated in (11) it's relevant whether an ordinary person thinks that "viewing the depiction would conclude that the depiction is of an actual minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct". The ordinary person has limited knowledge of BDSM and might view it as perverted stuff. However drawscore showed some examples that are obviously okay.
I'm not a lawyer nor on expert in US law. I strongly recommend to ask a lawyer and not trust too much what people say on the internet. You cannot know how well informed we are. My source says such photos are legal but maybe there's another law hidden somewhere that makes an exception. Or certain states have stricter regulations. I don't know. That's why you need to consult an expert if you want to be really sure. Or delete the questionable pics, because there is a second question to it: is it ethically okay to use such photos to get aroused? (In case you do this - maybe you just view them and that's it, I don't know.)
Liz wrote:MisterBones wrote:Sadistic or masochistic abuse, I would say, is meant to include BDSM.
Your statement illustrates the underlying problem here. If you're not into the BDSM community you might have different views on the topic and the average person might have a hard time to accurately use the correct terms. Nobody can be really sure what effects these different views have on jury members in court proceedings.
In fact, BDSM includes consentual sadism and masochism, it excludes sadistic and masochistic abuse. That's a difference. See also DSM-5 302.83(F65.51) where they differ between disorders and the milder form: "Milder forms of masochism between consenting adults, sometimes also referred to as "BDSM" or dominant and submissive, are not classified as disorders by the DSM-5." The law cited above seems not to refer abusive forms of sexuality described in DSM-5 as disorder, but not the milder form of BDSM - I assume.
Kidnapable82 wrote:I think that is the way to go, too.
Sealherlips wrote:I think it's best to assume it's illegal. Those things are made for fetish reasons, so I'll assume that if they're used, it's intended to be pornographic.
You all make very good points. In my opinion, things can get a bit subjective when one applies legislature (a stark, black-and-white principle) to sexual content, a matter generally perceived as a grey area. So it's very important that we know what we're referring to here.
Sealherlips expressly asked about underage girls in latex, ball gags, or other bondage gear, so long as they are fully clothed. And, if the article that Liz posted is accurate, sexually explicit conduct is outlined as sexual intercourse, bestiality, masturbation, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or exhibition of genitals or pubic area.
So far nothing Sealherlips has described has met any of these criteria. Latex is a clothing item, albeit a generally fetish-oriented clothing item, but given that is FULLY clothes the individual, there's nothing wrong or illegal about it. In addition, while a ball gag or related bondage item may primarily be intended for use in sexual matters, utilizing such items may not necessarily equate to sexual content. May I remind everyone that a while back some images (and subsequent video) were posted featuring a young boy hogtied and ball gagged. To my memory, nobody seemed to have a problem with it at the time. I imagine that's because there was nothing sexual involved.
As I said, it's a bit of a grey area. And I don't want my defense of this to be misconstrued. I believe that there is definitely a line that should not be crossed. I just happen to largely agree with this article and define this line as any nude or sexual act with a minor. It is my belief that anything else, such as a photo of a kid tied up or a photo of a kid wearing a ball gag does not constitute illegal content. However, legislation can be tricky and it's important to know where your federal or state government stands on this.
There is only one God, and his name is Death. And there is only one thing we say to Death: Not today.