Reddit's Jailbait Controversy

[Love]

So there are some really "smart people" on mainstream who are criticizing the website Reddit for allowing its users to post Jailbait photos. While true JB is not child pornography, many of these people are claiming Reddit supports and/or is irrelevant towards it. Of course, the First Amendment is circulating around the subject of these news anchors - they want Reddit to forget about its "freedom to post" policy and remove its legal (note: legal) content. While the photos are obviously not in good taste, they are entirely in line with the laws against kiddie porn - and do not display nudity of any sort.

Keeping in mind that this section of Reddit is only a small portion of the site's subjects, do you think they should comply with the outraged mainstream, or ignore it and allow the material to be published anonymously?

(Note: I do support the philosophy of free speech even though there are offensive forms of speech)

[TheSixthCell]

Allow it, let them bitch. Won't lose them any face, since what little respect they have is from people who jerk off to that sort of stuff mostly. The rest of the respect they have is from those who are indifferent.

[Mechwarrior300]

I don't get why we need to abide by the First Amendment in EVERY case. Why would I want someone to have the freedom of posing suggestive images of my underage daughter online for abunch of pervs to stare at?

[TheMajormel]

what is jailbait?is it child pornography?if it is,they need to take that down bro.

[All-American-Badass]

At 9/29/11 08:16 PM, Hybridization wrote: Keeping in mind that this section of Reddit is only a small portion of the site's subjects, do you think they should comply with the outraged mainstream, or ignore it and allow the material to be published anonymously?

They should ignore it, i have no idea how popular r/jailbait is. but i'm sure stuff posted on r/f7u12 which is one of their most popular subreddits is way worse than suggestive but legal photos of 16 year old camwhores.

[The-universe]

At 9/30/11 11:32 AM, Mechwarrior300 wrote: Why would I want someone to have the freedom of posing suggestive images of my underage daughter online for abunch of pervs to stare at?

The question you should be asking is, how did it get on the web in the first place?

Somebodies possibly metaphorical kiddy has been a very naughty girl.

"Job: Photography & Design"

Never mind, mystery solved.

[PowerRangerYELLOW]

At 9/30/11 04:07 PM, The-universe wrote: The question you should be asking is, how did it get on the web in the first place?

Facebook photos and youtube videos posted by the underaged girls themselves because they want attention.

[aviewaskewed]

At 9/30/11 11:32 AM, Mechwarrior300 wrote: I don't get why we need to abide by the First Amendment in EVERY case.

Cause if you don't, it sets a precedent for not doing so. That precedent then opens the door to start legislating based on personal taste (kind of like we just did in NJ over Jersey Shore's tax credits).

Why would I want someone to have the freedom of posing suggestive images of my underage daughter online for abunch of pervs to stare at?

Why would you let your underage daughter get into situations where she can have suggestive images of her made? Again, if what they are doing is legal, they shouldn't be stopped. If it's not to your taste, then just stay away from it and don't look at it.

[Love]

At 9/30/11 12:56 PM, majormelthesackboy wrote: what is jailbait?is it child pornography?if it is,they need to take that down bro.

It's literally sexually suggestive photos or videos of underage teenagers (usually girls). Participants or viewers call it "Jailbait" because actually having sexual relations with the girls depicted is illegal - so, they are like "bait" to get put in jail.

[Camarohusky]

At 9/30/11 09:45 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Cause if you don't, it sets a precedent for not doing so. That precedent then opens the door to start legislating based on personal taste (kind of like we just did in NJ over Jersey Shore's tax credits).

True, but I could definitely see this passing the Miller test for unprotected obscenity. Would take a little stretch, but not so much of one that would render the decision meaningless. I challenge anyone to claim that this stuff passes the SLAPS test (Serious Literary, Artistic, Political, or Scientifict value)

Why would you let your underage daughter get into situations where she can have suggestive images of her made? Again, if what they are doing is legal, they shouldn't be stopped. If it's not to your taste, then just stay away from it and don't look at it.

Sad thing is that most children who get involved in this sort of stuff don't have good parents or parents at all. There may be a few rebellious but well parented girls who get involved in the jailbait stuff on the teenager end, but when it comes to full on child pronography or younger exploitation the parents are usually dead, the perpetrators, complicit, or out of the picture in some other way. Many of these children were actually kidnapped at a young age to essentially live as subjects of this stuff.

It's sad.

[Mechwarrior300]

At 9/30/11 04:07 PM, The-universe wrote:

At 9/30/11 11:32 AM, Mechwarrior300 wrote:

Somebodies possibly metaphorical kiddy has been a very naughty girl.

"Job: Photography & Design"

Never mind, mystery solved.

What?

[TheMajormel]

At 10/1/11 04:37 PM, Hybridization wrote:

It's literally sexually suggestive photos or videos of underage teenagers (usually girls). Participants or viewers call it "Jailbait" because actually having sexual relations with the girls depicted is illegal - so, they are like "bait" to get put in jail.

:D,im 14!well time to look at reddit.com!!!
haha joking.but jeez kids want so much attention nowadays!GAWSH,kids are sad.

[Love]

At 10/1/11 10:50 PM, majormelthesackboy wrote:

At 10/1/11 04:37 PM, Hybridization wrote:

It's literally sexually suggestive photos or videos of underage teenagers (usually girls). Participants or viewers call it "Jailbait" because actually having sexual relations with the girls depicted is illegal - so, they are like "bait" to get put in jail.

D,im 14!well time to look at reddit.com!!!

haha joking.but jeez kids want so much attention nowadays!GAWSH,kids are sad.

It would technically be illegal for you to view Jailbait on that site because there is a minimum viewing age of 18. But, I agree that kids today want too much attention - it's no surprise there are hundreds of sites like that.

[aviewaskewed]

At 10/1/11 05:38 PM, Camarohusky wrote: True, but I could definitely see this passing the Miller test for unprotected obscenity. Would take a little stretch, but not so much of one that would render the decision meaningless. I challenge anyone to claim that this stuff passes the SLAPS test (Serious Literary, Artistic, Political, or Scientifict value)

I really wonder how far this will get pushed and under what grounds. The internet has certainly been a difficult battle ground to get many legislative victories on, and if they can not be found to technically be breaking any laws then we're back to a case of legislating personal taste, and that is dangerous dangerous ground for us all.

Sad thing is that most children who get involved in this sort of stuff don't have good parents or parents at all.

You got something to back up using the word "most" here? Because to me this just seems more like the "sexting" phenomenon where otherwise well behaved girls or boys, start sending pictures to each other via the net or the phone. The problem I think comes back to people who are ill prepared for a new digital reality. I think some people are still thinking in a very analogue way and even though the internet has been around for awhile and social media as well...there's still an attitude of "well, it won't happen to ME". Once it's out there and it goes viral, that's the end of it.

There may be a few rebellious but well parented girls who get involved in the jailbait stuff on the teenager end, but when it comes to full on child pronography or younger exploitation the parents are usually dead, the perpetrators, complicit, or out of the picture in some other way.

Uh, how exactly did we go from a topic about the jailbait pictures on reddit to child porn? The two things are not the same. I fail to see where any time or discussion should be spent in bringing child porn into the matter.

It's sad.

It is, but it's not really relevant to the discussion at hand :)

[Camarohusky]

At 10/2/11 01:00 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: I really wonder how far this will get pushed and under what grounds.

I dunno. I have never gone to the Reddit site, and I never will.

You got something to back up using the word "most" here? Because to me this just seems more like the "sexting" phenomenon where otherwise well behaved girls or boys, start sending pictures to each other via the net or the phone.

That depends on what these pictires actually are. Are these pictures of stupid kids doing sexting things they think are private or are these exploitative pictures? These two categories take two very different circumstances to create.

Uh, how exactly did we go from a topic about the jailbait pictures on reddit to child porn? The two things are not the same. I fail to see where any time or discussion should be spent in bringing child porn into the matter.

Again, I have never been to the site. However, if these are exploitative pictures I see the line between them and child porn to be thinner than the clothes the children wear.

[SolInvictus]

who needs any site other than NGs?

[TheMajormel]

At 10/1/11 11:42 PM, Hybridization wrote:

- it's no surprise there are hundreds of sites like that.

hundreds??i mean i know facebook and reddit are the only ones having jail bait (well, facebook used to).
but there's more?
What kind of world do we live in...

[ZJ]

The whole thing is stupid. Reddit shouldn't have to remove anything if it isn't illegal. What's next? Are they gonna yell at Facebook for allowing underaged high school girls to post their slutty pictures all over the internet?

[aviewaskewed]

At 10/2/11 12:21 PM, Camarohusky wrote: I dunno. I have never gone to the Reddit site, and I never will.

I mean outside reddit. I doubt they'll change their ways, or go out of there way to play it up much. If they get extra traffic from the attention, fine for them. If they go out seeking it, it might be a sort of "poking the bear" situation, and I can't imagine they want the consequences of that. So to me it comes down to how crusading any particular crusaders feel.

That depends on what these pictires actually are.

Well, you could go check if for no other reason then to actually get more information for your argument.

Are these pictures of stupid kids doing sexting things they think are private or are these exploitative pictures? These two categories take two very different circumstances to create.

Ok, but do those circumstances make a difference in the eyes of the law? Because I'm thinking that right now the answer is probably "no" as long as nobody has their underwear off. The best I can find on this information is basically what they're doing is trolling the net and finding pics that cam whores and others are posting up. So based on my own limited knowledge, it seems like a case of column 1. If it's column 1, I go back to leaning on that idea of "if you don't like it, don't view it" because there's really nothing substantial to legislate here...other then getting on that dangerous ground of legislating personal taste, and telling people what they can and cannot do with otherwise legal images on the internet.

Again, I have never been to the site.

So that's even less reason to bring child porn into it. Because you are admitting that you don't know if these pictures do, or do not, qualify as child porn.

However, if these are exploitative pictures I see the line between them and child porn to be thinner than the clothes the children wear.

Except for the fact that this is an "if" "but" "maybe" argument. You're trying to make points, statements, and judgements without actually trying to arm yourself with the facts to do so. I take CP seriously, I think most anyone who isn't a pedophile does. I don't think it's a term we should ever apply lightly, and without actually bothering to view the materials in question to make such judgements.

[The-universe]

At 10/1/11 08:32 PM, Mechwarrior300 wrote: What?

It was a point with a joke slapped on the end.

[Camarohusky]

At 10/3/11 12:37 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: Well, you could go check if for no other reason then to actually get more information for your argument.

I'm going to pass. I don't think going to that site will help me in any way, and there is an off chance that it could really hurt me. I'll stay away and stick to hypotheticals, thank you.

Ok, but do those circumstances make a difference in the eyes of the law? Because I'm thinking that right now the answer is probably "no" as long as nobody has their underwear off.

I very much think it does. When it comes to the pure Miller test analysis it likely won't, however when you get exploitation (i.e. any sort of forced act for another's sexual pleasure) there are some other legal issues and protections that come into play.

So that's even less reason to bring child porn into it. Because you are admitting that you don't know if these pictures do, or do not, qualify as child porn.

I am not even saying they qualify as child porn. I am putting out the hypothetical that if these pictures indeed are exploitative, there may be grounds to treat them in the same light as child pronography.

[PowerRangerYELLOW]

At 10/3/11 04:04 PM, Camarohusky wrote: I am not even saying they qualify as child porn. I am putting out the hypothetical that if these pictures indeed are exploitative, there may be grounds to treat them in the same light as child pronography.

These are photos teenage girls post on there own facebook wall.

[aviewaskewed]

At 10/3/11 04:04 PM, Camarohusky wrote: I'm going to pass.

Ok, then I don't see how you can continue to participate in the discussion.

I don't think going to that site will help me in any way, and there is an off chance that it could really hurt me. I'll stay away and stick to hypotheticals, thank you.

Except we're not talking hypotheticals. We're talking about a real site, real pictures, and the real issues this may or may not create. If you aren't willing to discuss these things in a knowledgeable way by understanding the materials and such in question...uh...what can you really bring to the situation?

I very much think it does.

So you really don't know is what you're saying.

When it comes to the pure Miller test analysis it likely won't, however when you get exploitation (i.e. any sort of forced act for another's sexual pleasure) there are some other legal issues and protections that come into play.

Ok, but from what I understand, and actually having bothered to look at the site in question to help formulate an opinion, I can quite honestly tell you I find absolutely no evidence of any exploitation as you are describing. So with that in mind, I think we can safely put to bed that line of discussion because it isn't relevant to the issue at hand.

I am not even saying they qualify as child porn. I am putting out the hypothetical that if these pictures indeed are exploitative, there may be grounds to treat them in the same light as child pronography.

But again, it's a hypothetical! It's a hypothetical that we don't need. You can easily go look at the pictures in question and formulate an opinion. Just looking at them in light of a discussion like this is not the same as looking at them to wack off. If you refuse to do that, then I really don't see what you can honestly add to the debate whatsoever.

[Elfer]

I'm sure Reddit is just going to allow posting to continue, and enjoy the extra traffic to their site. They stand to lose more idealist internet users by curtailing freedom to post legal content than they do by allowing jailbait posting to continue.

[Camarohusky]

At 10/3/11 04:45 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: If you refuse to do that, then I really don't see what you can honestly add to the debate whatsoever.

Really?

So in a topic trying to find a line between legal and not legal, using hypotheticals to try to determine the line is not relevant?

I think you have essentially destroyed hundreds of years of legal canons there...

Anyway, why so quick to brush aside? Do you not want to find the line? Are we just going to end this at "the girls post these pics to theri facebook, so case closed." Should we ignore the core issue now?

[aviewaskewed]

At 10/3/11 09:09 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Really?

Really.

So in a topic trying to find a line between legal and not legal, using hypotheticals to try to determine the line is not relevant?

Not when you could actually go view the material in question (which you refuse to do) the material that this topic is about, and can thus based on that viewing make some determinations about such a thing. You refuse to go to the site, you refuse to look at the pictures to see if you're suggestions and "maybes" have any weight. But yet you want to keep talking and arguing? You do realize how dumb that sounds right?

I think you have essentially destroyed hundreds of years of legal canons there...

What? I thought when you're talking about obscenity laws, and whether or not something is legal under such laws...the first thing you have to do is take a look at the material in question. What you're arguing for seems to be "hey, let's go make decisions about the legality of something without actually viewing that something because I'm just too good to do so". That's not how the law works in any way. You just get more ridiculous by the post.

Anyway, why so quick to brush aside?

I explained that, because you don't want to actually understand the situation properly. You'd rather just repeat into ifs and buts. Bring up CP, bring up exploitation, and just the worst sort of things, without bothering to even do a cursory glance to see if it applies.

Do you not want to find the line?

I happen to think we know where the line is. I happen to think that sites like this, youtube, and Facebook, and anywhere else this type of material pops up, are pretty clear on where the line is, and the law is too. Some guy who didn't even bother to understand what it is being discussed trying to muddy the waters with his stance of "no I won't look at this stuff. I'll just throw out stuff that may not even apply" is really silly.

Are we just going to end this at "the girls post these pics to theri facebook, so case closed." Should we ignore the core issue now?

What the hell is the core issue? That we need to protect people from themselves? That we have to tell people they don't have the personal freedom to post pictures of themselves, no matter how questionable those pictures may be? That golly gee, even though it's perfectly legal, it OFFENDS some people, and it might give some pervs satisfaction...so sorry about your freedoms and stuff...but it's for "the greater good".

[Camarohusky]

At 10/3/11 04:20 PM, PowerRangerYELLOW wrote: These are photos teenage girls post on there own facebook wall.

Strangely, I have seen pictures like this as discovery for a case at work...

I guess reddit is now in the position that Craigslist was with their sex ads. They can cave to public pressure, or they can go forward and keep on posting this stuff.

A site that posts controversial stuff for other's pleasure really has no motive to stop. It's not liek this stuff was considered socially OK to take from other's pages without their consent, and then just turned bad. These people take pictures knowing the social view of them. A bit of moral pressure seems like little harm for an activity that was already thought to be iffy to begin with.

[Sense-Offender]

At 9/29/11 09:17 PM, TheSixthCell wrote: Allow it, let them bitch. Won't lose them any face, since what little respect they have is from people who jerk off to that sort of stuff mostly. The rest of the respect they have is from those who are indifferent.

What in good fuck are you talking about? Do you have any idea how many people are on Reddit, and how many subreddits there are that several people may not even know exist until someone else mentions or links to it? I think the whole jailbait thing is fucked up and creepy. I am certainly not indifferent, and I use the site. And there's worse stuff than that, like /r/deathfap, and people don't seem to be complaining about that. Do you think most of the respect they have come from those who like or are indifferent to that shit as well?

What you're asserting is the opposite of the truth. You can see what most of the people are there for by looking at what subreddits are on the front page and looking at the number of subscribers, like /r/funny, /r/videos, /r/pics, /r/gaming, /r/askreddit and others. It's a fine site to go to for killing time and finding interesting, informative, or amusing things from all over the internet in one place, as well as sharing things that you think other people might like. I also find it weird how you use the phrase "what little respect they have", as if it isn't enjoyed by an assload of people from all over.

At 10/3/11 09:09 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 10/3/11 04:45 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: If you refuse to do that, then I really don't see what you can honestly add to the debate whatsoever.

Really?

The thing is, if you want to form your own opinion on whether or not it should be illegal, you should probably take a look yourself to see just what it is like. You should find out if it's as bad as you think it might be. But I understand the objection, if you're concenred about what you might see. Still, aviewaskewed has a valid point.

[PowerRangerYELLOW]

At 10/3/11 09:57 PM, Camarohusky wrote: I guess reddit is now in the position that Craigslist was with their sex ads. They can cave to public pressure, or they can go forward and keep on posting this stuff.

I would hope redidit would stand there ground until the laws actually change.

A site that posts controversial stuff for other's pleasure really has no motive to stop. It's not liek this stuff was considered socially OK to take from other's pages without their consent, and then just turned bad. These people take pictures knowing the social view of them. A bit of moral pressure seems like little harm for an activity that was already thought to be iffy to begin with.

If the teenage girls didn't get attention for there slutty pictures than they wouldn't post those pictures in the first place.

[Camarohusky]

At 10/8/11 01:49 PM, PowerRangerYELLOW wrote: If the teenage girls didn't get attention for there slutty pictures than they wouldn't post those pictures in the first place.

Before I respond to this, do you know if the jailbait pictures are posted by the girls themselves, or compiled from their personal/facebook pages and reposted by someone else onto Reddit? I see a distinction in the two.