Crystal Hefner and the nonprofit controlling Hefner's documents are in a dispute over the materials, which she contends feature intimate images of women, including possibly "girls who were underage at the time." Hefner's sons dispute the claim.
Go after them for child porn. Easy win law enforcement
Allred in her own statement noted that they are asking for the attorneys general to investigate the Hugh M. Hefner Foundation’s stewardship and actions. She observed that the documentation in question includes names of women the magazine publisher slept with as well as notes describing the sex acts they performed. “Crystal is especially concerned that these scrapbooks could contain images of minor girls,” Allred said. “Moreover, Crystal is also concerned that some of the images in the scrapbooks may have been taken without the informed consent of the adult women depicted, such as while they were intoxicated.”
Please use the term CSAM. Secondly, if they can’t identify the people in the photos, the ages may be difficult to determine. That could legally be an area which might make enforcement of a law hard. I don’t know how these laws work, just throwing the idea out there. If I am wrong, someone please correct me. The article specifically mention California and Illinois.
Child porn. Kiddie porn. Child sexual abuse material. It’s all the same thing.
Being in porn ≠ consent. There is a shitload of porn out there that is absolutely non-consensual, and I wouldn’t be surprised if even a quarter of existing porn was consensual. Revenge porn is one specific non-consensual category, but porn producers often use manipulation tactics to groom young women into the industry, then dump them when they’re no longer “pretty” or whatever terms those shitheaps use.
Because someone made up the idea that porn must be consensual so they could quibble over terminology instead of doing anything about child sexual abuse.
“Revenge Porn” is a more commonly-used term these days than is CSAM, and the whole point of it is that it’s non-consensual (though the original act may have been, the recording may, and the distribution by definition is not)
It’s not about consent. Porn in its usual context is sexual media people use to get off. With CSAM the main subject is children getting abused, the fact that pedophiles use it to get off is a secondary consideration.
The victim should take precedence in nomenclature.
Porn isn’t something with a victim, it’s something a person gets off to. Sexual abuse material is a picture with an abuse victim whether or not someone is getting off to it, because that’s not the part that matters. It’s not porn because the fact someone gets off to this picture isn’t the important thing about it.
That’s like if you called someone a cannibal was eating “human meat” … Like no, meat is meant to be eaten as food, this is the “murdered remains of a person”.
I don’t even know if you’re being serious at this point. The distinction should be pretty clear.
The distinction you are trying to make is clear, it’s just not an actual current distinction in the English language.
You are inventing a part of the definition of pornography which says, “it does not have a victim” or alternatively, “the important thing about it is that someone gets off to it.” You won’t find that in any dictionary definition of porn, and the continued use of the term “child porn” shows that this is not how people use the word in practice.
So it’s not that you’re merely relating facts about terms. The only explanation is that this is a distinction you feel people ought to make. But compare it to other things:
Revenge porn - another term where we use “porn” but where there is a victim.
Drink driving - the word “drink” turns a term like “driving” which is not immoral or illegal, into something different. The focus is on the activity, not the victim.
Theft - the focus is on the property stolen, not on the victim, its owner.
You aren’t going to convince anyone who doesn’t think that child porn is that bad that is actually is, by instead insisting everyone call it CSAM. It’s not the name that makes them think it’s OK.
Go after them for child porn. Easy win law enforcement
Please use the term CSAM. Secondly, if they can’t identify the people in the photos, the ages may be difficult to determine. That could legally be an area which might make enforcement of a law hard. I don’t know how these laws work, just throwing the idea out there. If I am wrong, someone please correct me. The article specifically mention California and Illinois.
Child porn. Kiddie porn. Child sexual abuse material. It’s all the same thing.
Being in porn ≠ consent. There is a shitload of porn out there that is absolutely non-consensual, and I wouldn’t be surprised if even a quarter of existing porn was consensual. Revenge porn is one specific non-consensual category, but porn producers often use manipulation tactics to groom young women into the industry, then dump them when they’re no longer “pretty” or whatever terms those shitheaps use.
why do you prefer csam over the other term?
Because someone made up the idea that porn must be consensual so they could quibble over terminology instead of doing anything about child sexual abuse.
Right? There’s plenty of porn out there that’s unconsensual. Calling it the acronym obscures it more because no one knows wtf it means.
And that’s probably their real motivation for trying to force the acronym on us.
“Revenge Porn” is a more commonly-used term these days than is CSAM, and the whole point of it is that it’s non-consensual (though the original act may have been, the recording may, and the distribution by definition is not)
Do you know what the term “revenge porn” means? lmao. What country are you from?
…are you implying anything they said is wrong? What country are you from?
I’m from Writeaworthwhilecommentistan
Ahhh, you’re from North Asia then. Got it.
It’s not about consent. Porn in its usual context is sexual media people use to get off. With CSAM the main subject is children getting abused, the fact that pedophiles use it to get off is a secondary consideration.
The victim should take precedence in nomenclature.
So “child porn” which makes it clear the victim is the child should be fine?
Porn isn’t something with a victim, it’s something a person gets off to. Sexual abuse material is a picture with an abuse victim whether or not someone is getting off to it, because that’s not the part that matters. It’s not porn because the fact someone gets off to this picture isn’t the important thing about it.
That’s like if you called someone a cannibal was eating “human meat” … Like no, meat is meant to be eaten as food, this is the “murdered remains of a person”.
I don’t even know if you’re being serious at this point. The distinction should be pretty clear.
Everything you’re saying is idiotically pedantic over distinctions that don’t exist in reality.
The distinction you are trying to make is clear, it’s just not an actual current distinction in the English language.
You are inventing a part of the definition of pornography which says, “it does not have a victim” or alternatively, “the important thing about it is that someone gets off to it.” You won’t find that in any dictionary definition of porn, and the continued use of the term “child porn” shows that this is not how people use the word in practice.
So it’s not that you’re merely relating facts about terms. The only explanation is that this is a distinction you feel people ought to make. But compare it to other things:
You aren’t going to convince anyone who doesn’t think that child porn is that bad that is actually is, by instead insisting everyone call it CSAM. It’s not the name that makes them think it’s OK.
Calling it porn implies that a person can consent. A minor cannot consent.
You think that porn is inherently consenting? That is not true at all.