this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2023

26 points (79.5% liked)

No Stupid Questions

36193 readers

1409 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)

Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.

Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.

Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.

Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.

Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.

Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.

Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.

Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.

Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.

Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

If feet can be a sexual fetish and Nickelodeon produced many scenes sexualizing teenagers feet, then can those scenes be considered CP? (lemmy.ml)

submitted 2 years ago by [email protected] to c/nostupidquestions

18 comments fedilink hide all child comments

This has been on my head for a very long time.

top 16 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 years ago

Nope, in the same way someone amassing photos from children's beauty pageant wouldn't constitute CP.

No clue why people are saying that if the collection is big enough it eould be CP. Thas is not (to my knowledge) how we define CP.

I quickly read this, which is a spanish article on the legislation on Chile comparing it to the rest of the world. You probably could google translate it if you are really interested. It talks about international definitions, other country drfinitions then the Chilean law and finally about how vague the terms used usually are and how to interpret.

https://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0718-33992014000200001#:~:text=%22Por%20pornograf%C3%ADa%20infantil%20se%20entiende,ni%C3%B1o%20con%20fines%20primordialmente%20sexuales.%22

From my read, CP laws usually focus on minors being used in materials that show them either doing sexual activities or that are meant for sexual excitement. Even nudity, by itself, is not CP (imagine you take photos of a nude child for a medical archive). Some other commonly seen requisites are that what is shown is primarily sexual and that the objective is the satisfaction of sexual desire. Some even separate plainly erotic content from sexual ones, but that is a big discussion in of itself and I don't know if it is relevant to US law.

Point being, nope, I don't think this conduct would constitute CP under US law (or any other for ghe matter) because it is not something that constitutes "explicit sexual conduct"

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

One thing to keep in mind is that a lot of legal systems superstitiously assume that you can "guess" someone's motivations, "intentions" (whatever this means) and similar. So cases like this often fall into a grey area, since they may or may not depend on the "intention" of who's producing those scenes.

At least the UN definition defines CP as "any representation, by whatever means, of a child engaged in real or simulated explicit sexual activities or any representation of the sexual parts of a child for primarily sexual purposes." I may be wrong but I do not think that the fetish itself counts as "explicit sexual activity", nor that the target of the fetish (foot) counts as "sexual parts of a child".

[–] croobat 4 points 2 years ago

Yeah dude, if I have a cereal fetish that doesn't all of a sudden turn a Kellogg's commercial into sexual content.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 years ago

Based on a Google search and the following link, no.

Google defined child porn using the term "sexually explicit conduct", involving a minor, fair enough, gotta look deeper.

Cornell has a legal definition of sexually explicit conduct for us, which basically breaks it into 5 categories, actual sex, bestiality, masturbating, specific kinds of abuse, and displays of various body parts.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?def_id=18-USC-821371409-1416780790

If this would be CP, it'd have to be some kind of abuse or the display, and I don't think anything Nick aired would count as "masochistic" or "sadistic". The body parts listed are also specific and don't include feet.

So, in the US, it's just really creepy, not CP. the fact we have to delve this deep to determine it's not CP is pretty telling on its own, though.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Probably not. You would have to prove that those scenes serve no other purpose besides sexual titillation. I haven't seen them (and have no interest in looking for them), so I can't say for sure, but that would be a significant burden to overcome.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago

I have seen some definitions use primarily sexual instead of only sexual and even then this kind of recordings are far, far, from actual CP

[–] hermitix_world 5 points 2 years ago

I think intent is hard to prove here. But it's not out of the realm of possibility either.

https://www.tmz.com/2021/07/03/nickelodeon-dan-schneider-denies-foot-fetish-kids-old-shows/

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2022/08/dan-schneider-accused-of-disgusting-controlling-behavior-while-at-nickelodeon

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 years ago

You could argue than anything could be sexual to someone. I think the intent behind it has to be provable as being sexual. And you'd struggle to do that.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Lol when the fuck did Nickelodeon ever sexualize teenagers feet? I can't even imagine what show that would be

[–] kraxyk 8 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Pretty much anything Dan Schneider produced. Zoey 101, iCarly, Amanda Show, etc

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago

Fair enough I never watched any of those shows, I think All That and Keenan and Kel are the only live action ones I watched

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

How much do you know about the producer largely responsible for those scenes, Dan Schneider?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

A lot.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago

So, I don't think the shows themselves qualify as CP but I can't really watch them anymore myself knowing what a creep he was.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I feel like the individual scenes in media wouldn't be, but a collection of them together probably would get the collection treated as such.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago

Username kinda relevant?

load more comments