Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 31

Thread: Funny thing about norway!

  1. #1

    Exclamation Funny thing about norway!

    I just found out a little thing about Norway (where I'm from).

    There is actually a law forbidding taking pictures of yourself wearing a diaper or dressed like a person under 18 years old (of course only sexual pictures), and distributing it in any way!

    If you break this law, you may be jailed for 3-5 years or get a fine for it from 6000$ and up-up-up.

    Why, you ask? Well... It's because it's considered as child pornography...(!)

    Isn't that stupid?

  2. #2

    Default

    lol, WHAT child pornography? Its consenting adults. I thought child pornography was underage children?

  3. #3

    Default

    Wow, that just sounds silly, but I guess the US has its share of weird laws too.

  4. #4

    Default

    It's not that stupid if you really think about it. Two factors come into play here, under-aged individuals posing as adults, and simulated child porn.

    There have been many accounts where people have gotten in trouble for trying to pass off under-aged teens as adults. Allowing adults to pose as children would make it easier for under-aged individuals to be shown in porn under the guise of adults. It also allows for plausible deniability of the participants actual ages.

    Many places have laws against simulated child porn; porn depicting children without actually involving real children. It is possible for such works to get exceeding close to the real thing. Some people believe that allow it makes distributing real child porn easier. Also allowing simulated child porn can be seen as accepting and even promoting pedophilia and child molestation.

    Yes, such laws can get out of hand, but I can be argued that ultimately they do hinder actual child porn.

  5. #5

    Default

    That is a really good point, and I agree, if not taken too far, those laws can help against pedophilia. I just worry about laws that start to encroach into areas that the general populace considers taboo but aren't immoral or illegal, and then the laws aren't revised or clarified because most of the people aren't really knowledgeable on the topic.

  6. #6

    Default

    Yep Australia has a similar Law it's illegal for an adult to dress up to look like a minor and take digital photos or video of themselves and be in possession of the material.

    It's also illegal to be in possession of digital fictional child pornography this includes;
    Written texts or books i.e. published work like Lolita or fan fiction, including original work (and it doesn’t matter if the author is a minor themselves.)

    Digital Cartoons of fictional or real characters I.E Bart, Lisa or maggi from the Simpsons. Japanese stuff or original work you drew yourself.

    This extends to teenagers if a teenager takes a naked picture of themselves and stores it on their phone or computer that teenager can still be hit with a possession of child pornography.

  7. #7

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Veljie View Post
    Yep Australia has a similar Law it's illegal for an adult to dress up to look like a minor and take digital photos or video of themselves and be in possession of the material.

    It's also illegal to be in possession of digital fictional child pornography this includes;
    Written texts or books i.e. published work like Lolita or fan fiction, including original work (and it doesn’t matter if the author is a minor themselves.)

    Digital Cartoons of fictional or real characters I.E Bart, Lisa or maggi from the Simpsons. Japanese stuff or original work you drew yourself.

    This extends to teenagers if a teenager takes a naked picture of themselves and stores it on their phone or computer that teenager can still be hit with a possession of child pornography.
    That is the single most fucking retarded thing I have ever heard in my entire life. No offense to you Australians out there (You have some sweet accents!), but, seriously? You know, I've NEVER been happy about being an American. We're a bunch of psychotic gun-toting right winged nuts. (Not saying we're all like that, but, that's what the world thinks of us! -_- and those people tend to have the louder voices..., at least in global views) Buuuut, seriously. If we were to have a law against dressing up in youth-esque clothing and taking a picture, I'd move to Canada. Like, right now -_- That's so freakin' STUPID! Like... ugh. Just, wow. If I wanna take a picture of myself naked, and, say, send it to someone my age who's like, my boyfriend... whilst it's stupid, it's none of anybody else's god damn business -_-

  8. #8

    Default

    The idea behind is basically to prevent the possible intent in which someone might view or use the image for sexual gratification.

    There has been a serious case with a professional nudist photographer that took 'tastful' photos of a naked 13 year old.
    Now mind you these are just Nude art photos. The child was not put in any sexual position or any position that could be interpreted as sexually arousing. He got consent from the parents from the child and all parties were there for the shoot. But some prude at the opening made a complaint and the media got involved sensualising it.

    The irony is, his done this kind of thing before for decades and no one had a problem with it. He even has his work in galleries around the world. But it's a sign of the times. Now every time he wants to do artistic nude photos of children. He needs to have the work looked over by a judge and jury before he even starts and then there is no guarantee it will not get destroyed or be allowed for public viewing.

    The Right wing family screwballs in Australia have the power and they cry “won’t we think of the children” any chance they get. The phrase "Australia is becoming a Nanny state" gets flung all too often now.

  9. #9

    Default



    porn depicting children without actually involving real children.
    In this day and age, of photoshop, morphing software, adult cartoons (in the style of say, Disney,) and cub art it is hard for the law to either keep pace with technology, or to define laws in a way that include what they are supposed to, and exclude only what should be excluded.

    Many laws are deliberately vague and are meant to be useful for all those weird situations nobody saw coming. We have a driving offense: driving without due care and attention. It is meant to be applied for all the situations where you didn't speed, stunt, race, be reckless, make an illegal u-turn or otherwise break a law according to its exact wording... but were still guilty of stupidity or malfeasance. This manner of ticket can be a deciding factor where negligence is claimed, or in civil cases that get decided on a "quantum of proof" rather than the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard in criminal law.

    I ranted before about how these broad laws could be applied narrowly, making just about any image of children prn, leading to us all being open to prosecution of thought crime.

    It works thus: Often to support a cp (child porn) posession case if you are found with many images of children, it is easier to make a case as you can't claim one image accidentally got clicked on and stayed on your hd. So context matters: if you are a parent and have a bunch of your own kids in swim trunks, it is less damning than if you have a thousand of strangers' kids... Now say you are a professional photographer commissioned by P & G to photograph kids swimming without their bandaids falling off. You have a much better chance of getting away with having thousands of kids in bathing suits photos.

    If you have thousands of actual kids-in-sexual-poses pix, the otherwise legal hoard of bathing suit photos become supporting evidence; kind of like where you are charged with having lock picks and you are not a locksmith.

    The important thing being evidence of intent.

    My point is that if otherwise legal images constitute evidence of intent, and the images are as stated "otherwise legal" you are essentially being damned for thought crime.



    King James Bible << Matthew 5:28 >>
    But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
    change woman to child. It would appear sinful thoughts are not far from prosecution here on earth.

    now see this wiki page Coppertone girl - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I claim this image, which has been reprinted on hundreds of millions of tin lids, constitutes cp under most western law (taken at its most literal.)

    Angela, we need you.

    By the way here's the wiki for Canadian CP laws http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_p...laws_in_Canada. Pay special note to sections 3 & 6
    Last edited by Raccoon; 09-May-2011 at 08:43.

  10. #10

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Mikeru117 View Post
    Like... ugh. Just, wow. If I wanna take a picture of myself naked, and, say, send it to someone my age who's like, my boyfriend... whilst it's stupid, it's none of anybody else's god damn business -_-
    There are similar laws in the US and Canada, you can't take pictures of yourself if you are under 18. Several people have been arrested for it.

    Porn charges for 'sexting' stir debate - Technology & science - Tech and gadgets - msnbc.com
    Sexting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Similar Threads

  1. Hi from Norway
    By absorbin in forum Greetings / Introductions
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 12-May-2009, 22:52
  2. Greetings from Norway
    By thoojs in forum Greetings / Introductions
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 12-May-2009, 22:44
  3. Hello from Norway
    By Randy5 in forum Greetings / Introductions
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 20-Mar-2008, 21:05

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
ADISC.org - the Adult Baby / Diaper Lover / Incontinence Support Community.
ADISC.org is designed to be viewed in Firefox, with a resolution of at least 1280 x 1024.