Read more carefully what you post. The example of holding a minor criminally liable for distributing his own images refers to sending those images to another minor/teen. The rest of the discussion is theoretical, and does not refer to instances which resulted in prosecuting the minor producing images of himself. The "theoretical" stuff is interesting, but also makes clear that the law is gray when a minor produces images of himself and doesn't send to/target other minors. Those are cases that could be brought, but their outcome is far less certain than where a teen is the target/recipient of the images, and those are not the cases prosecutors have brought -- as one of your earlier posts stated, prosecutors have gone after teens for sexting with other teens. The rest is much more speculative, and those cases have not and likely will not be brought for that reason. But, you strike me as invested in your view, so I don't expect to persuade you otherwise, and this will be my final comment on the matter.
Michael hoffman
- Thread starter Thales dartora
- Start date
-
- Tags
- gay michael hoffman
Read more carefully what you post. The example of holding a minor criminally liable for distributing his own images refers to sending those images to another minor/teen. The rest of the discussion is theoretical, and does not refer to instances which resulted in prosecuting the minor producing images of himself. The "theoretical" stuff is interesting, but also makes clear that the law is gray when a minor produces images of himself and doesn't send to/target other minors. Those are cases that could be brought, but their outcome is far less certain than where a teen is the target/recipient of the images, and those are not the cases prosecutors have brought -- as one of your earlier posts stated, prosecutors have gone after teens for sexting with other teens. The rest is much more speculative, and those cases have not and likely will not be brought for that reason. But, you strike me as invested in your view, so I don't expect to persuade you otherwise, and this will be my final comment on the matter.
Teen arrested for allegedly having nude photos of himself on his phone
Ohio Teen Must Register As A Sex Offender For Sex Tape With Underage Girl
A Maryland Teen Shared a Video of Her Own Sex Act. She Was Punished as a Child Pornographer.
Child Porn Laws Used Against Kids Who Photograph Themselves
There are plenty more links for those who are google challenged. Let me know.
I think you mean Brent Corrigan, who was a minor when he did some Cobra videos. I never heard that Thierry Pepin was underage when he did his porn work. I thought the scene(s) were removed because he started to become famous as a model, and his lawyers went after the porn company. If the basis of the legal threats was his being a minor, I will stand corrected.
Again, each of these cases you refer to involved transmitting images of other minors and to other minors.
The first link itself speaks to the guy getting charged with having a pic of himself(alone) and being charged for it. Stop trying to spin this, because that’s all that is. Minors cannot take nude photos of themselves, let alone distribute them in anyway to anyone. It’s all illegal.
Again you seem to roll right over Possession,Distributing, not to mention selling the content. Possessing images of nude or sexually explicit material, whether it’s of the the person themselves is illegal. Period and it’s up to the discretion of the D.A. To charge the person who made the images.
This is a thread about MICHAEL HOFFMAN not child pornography. We get the legal issues. How much longer does this need to continue?
As long as people want to debate the fact that Michael Hoffman made and distributed content when he was underage. Also, as long as people grasp that having that content and continue to spread it has a ri-ple effect that could potentially lead to serious legal issues. The issue was brought up by other people and discussed, until a few people wanted to kill it so the person who orchestrated this whole thing (Michael himself) wouldn’t get into trouble..LMAO.
Why should people with legitimate questions and want exact facts told to shut up or move on? People have every right to ask questions and if people can give them insights or answers into the criminality of what Michael did and how it affects them, they should have it. Just because there are people who want to try and put spilled milk back into the bottle doesn’t mean I or anyone else needs to fall in line. I hv3 not diverted from discussing Michael, I’ve only discussed his work and his actions, if I’m focused on one particular aspect at this his moment doesn’t make it off topic, that’s just nonsense.
It’s been clear for over a decade. His lawyers claims have always been Thierry Pepin was underage when he made that porn scene and it doesn’t matter if it was a week or the day before his 18th birthday. It was enough for the company to edit the movie and cut out the scene from the movie. Doesn’t matter what you think or your spin on it.
Dylan1111
Superior Member
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2017
- Posts
- 764
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 6,595
- Points
- 338
- Location
- Vancouver (British Columbia, Canada)
- Gender
- Male
Just don't look at him or give him any attention. He will tire himself out eventually...That or he will get banned for flooding and trolling.
The question was asked and answered awhile ago. You're the only one keeping it going. Take it to a child pornography discussion thread. The rest of us don't want to continue with it. Why can't you understand that?
Nobody is debating anything that shit stopped like 5 pages ago why do you keep going on about it,
You keep bringing this up and keep talking about FFS
Please stop and let's talk about Michael in the present please xx
In what way did I insult you?
I asked you many times to stop talking about it and keep it back to Michael's appreciation instead your trying to get this great thread blocked and deleted?
Why do you still keep going
Dylan1111
Superior Member
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2017
- Posts
- 764
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 6,595
- Points
- 338
- Location
- Vancouver (British Columbia, Canada)
- Gender
- Male
I didn't spin. I acknowledged limited info and allowed that I could be wrong w/r/t Pepin. I'm not sure how he or Corrigan relate to the MH scenario since it was a third party porn company publishing the Pepin and Corrigan material, not Pepin and Corrigan themselves. But you've expressed your point, marshaled your evidence (incorrectly, I believe on some counts), and I've made my points. Continuing to debate is useless since you will conjure up yet another non-analogous case to "refute".
You keep shifting. Now the money they were paid is probative. Moreover, you lump together two distinct issues: whether something is illegal, and whether it is prosecuted. For your examples of "all three" to work, you would need for Pepin and Corrigan to have been prosecuted for lying about their age and therefore responsible for the dissemination by others of child porn. Do you have proof that they were prosecuted? No. The remedy wasn't prosecuting them for child porn, but getting the porn removed. And, in the case of Brent Corrigan, there was a fair amount of evidence that the owner of Cobra studios knew Corrigan was underage.
