Young Legal Porn
🛑 ALL INFORMATION CLICK HERE 👈🏻👈🏻👈🏻
Young Legal Porn
Department of Health | Department of Education Growing & Developing Healthy Relationships
WA Government Online Entry Point's search page Go to whole of WA Government search
© Government of Western Australia. All rights reserved. wa.gov.au
It is not usually illegal for someone who is under 18 to watch porn on the internet.
It is illegal to show porn to people who are under 18. This means that if a young person is showing another young person a porn video, they could be committing an offence.
It is illegal to watch porn if the people in the video are or appear to be under the age of 18.
Although it is not illegal, viewing porn that is violent or abusive or watching porn to the point of compulsion can cause problems.
Technically it is illegal to upload a video of someone having sex online because these videos are usually classified as X18+ (and there is some content that is completely refused classification due to its offensive and violent nature). This means that the Australian Communications and Media Authority can request that it is removed.
Disclaimer: This information is a general guide only. It is not legal advice. For legal advice on a particular situation, contact Legal Aid WA .
Looking at Child Porn Is Totally Legal in New York State
This article is from the archive of our partner .
This article is from the archive of our partner The Wire .
Logic takes us strange places sometimes, like when a judge found herself writing this little gem : "The purposeful viewing of child pornography on the internet is now legal in New York."
Logic takes us strange places sometimes, like when a judge found herself writing this little gem : "The purposeful viewing of child pornography on the internet is now legal in New York." That's a sentence you'd want to wash your hands after committing to paper (heck, or wash your eyes after reading), but it comes at the end of a line of reasoning in an appeals court decision that makes sense even if it appears to provide a loophole for kiddie porn lovers.
Essentially, the court ruled on Tuesday , you can't be held responsible for things you just see online, even kiddie porn, the viewing of which isn't actually illegal under New York law. As MSNBC.com's M. Alex Johnson reports, the majority opinion by New York Court of Appeals Senior Judge Carmen Ciparik:
"Rather, some affirmative act is required (printing, saving, downloading, etc.) to show that defendant in fact exercised dominion and control over the images that were on his screen," Ciparick wrote. "To hold otherwise, would extend the reach of (state law) to conduct — viewing — that our Legislature has not deemed criminal."
It's true: Under article 263 of New York's penal code , it's illegal to create, possess, distribute, promote, or facilitate child pornography, but it's not illegal simply to view it. And the evidence in the case against Marist College Professor James D. Kent consisted of images found in a Web cache on his computer when he took it in to get it scanned for viruses.
As Johnson points out, federal child pornography laws don't mention browser caches, and just that evidence hasn't been enough to win federal convictions in the past. Since he didn't know the cache was capturing the Web content, Kent couldn't be held responsible for collecting them, the court ruled. Because as we all learned from this ruling, simply looking at child pornography is legal in New York. Gross.
We'll notify you here with news about
Turn on desktop notifications for breaking stories about interest?
Woman to travel out of state after being denied abortion for fetus without skull
5 people sent to hospital after Six Flags roller coaster ride
Justice Department makes redacted Mar-a-Lago affidavit public
Report: US Coast Guard ship denied port call in Solomons
'Take responsibility': Experts push back on Arredondo's termination response
Why did one teenager face 90 years in jail for viewing porn?
Jan. 12, 2007— -- Sixteen-year-old Matthew Bandy was about as normal a teenager as you could find. He actually liked hanging out with his family.
"He was a happy-go-lucky kid," said his mother, Jeannie Bandy. "Very personable, and big-hearted. I sound like a boastful mom, but I guess the biggest thing is that he could always make me laugh."
"We went on vacations and had a lot of fun together," Matthew said. "I just enjoyed the life I was living. But after I was accused, everything changed."
What was Matthew Bandy accused of? Jeannie and Greg Bandy were shocked to discover that their son was charged with possession of child pornography.
One December morning two years ago, Matthew's life took a dramatic turn. In an exclusive interview with "20/20," the Bandy family reveals how the world as they knew it came crumbling down, and how Matthew's life has since changed.
It has been two years since police officers stood at the doorstep of the Bandy home with a search warrant bearing a devastating charge -- possession of child pornography.
"It was 6 a.m. It was still dark…there was this pounding at the door," Jeannie Bandy said. "I was petrified."
Police officers stormed into the house with guns pointed. "The first thing I thought was, someone's trying to break in our house," Matthew said. "And then there [were] police officers with guns pointed at me, telling me to get downstairs."
Greg Bandy was handed the search warrant and informed that the central suspect was Matthew. According to the warrant, nine images of young girls in suggestive poses were found on the Bandy family computer. Yahoo monitors chat rooms for suspicious content and reported that child porn was uploaded from the computer at the Bandys' home address.
"When they asked me have you ever looked up or uploaded or downloaded erotic images of minors, I was just taken aback and…I said, 'No,'" says Matthew.
Nevertheless, Matthew did have an embarrassing confession. He had been sneaking peaks at adult erotic photos on the family computer. "I got the Web site from a bunch of friends at school. [It was] just adult pornography…Playboy-like images."
Difficult to admit, but not illegal -- or so it seemed. Still, it didn't look good for Matt, as police confiscated the computer and left the house that December day. A family was shattered.
"I still remember when they were cleaning up and leaving and of course I was still in my pajamas and my bathrobe and my fuzzy slippers," Jeannie Bandy said. "I said, 'What do we do now? Should I contact a lawyer?' [The police officer] said, 'Well, they are felonies that the state takes very serious.'"
The Bandys would soon find out just how serious the charges against Matthew were. The family hired Ed Novak, a well-respected attorney from a large law firm in downtown Phoenix.
"20/20" correspondent Jim Avila asked Novak what the family was up against.
"We faced 10 years per count, there were nine counts," said Novak. "If Matt was convicted, those sentences would have to be served consecutively. In other words, he would have been sentenced to 90 years in prison. He would have served time until he died."
Greg and Jeannie Bandy knew their son well. They were shocked at the serious charges against him and frightened by the prospect of such a serious sentence.
"He's never done any drugs," Greg said. "He never drank a drop of alcohol. He's never been a problem, never stayed out late and gotten into trouble or anything like that."
Arizona child pornography laws are among the harshest in the country. As soon as Matthew was charged, he was put on virtual house arrest, and an electronic bracelet was attached to his ankle to monitor his movements 24 hours a day.
"It was just terrifying. I didn't know what was going on. I didn't know why it was happening," Matthew recalled.
Matthew was in an awful predicament, and he tried to keep his house arrest a secret. He wore longer pants to hide the ankle bracelet, but he was scared he would be discovered.
"Yes, I was very scared," he said. "If they found out that I was wearing an ankle bracelet all of a sudden they would be wondering, why are you wearing that? And I had no good answer for them."
The shy young boy could not explain how such pictures appeared on his computer hard drive. The stress of the situation got so bad for Matthew that he told his parents the charges hanging over his head made high school impossible.
"He said 'Mom, I'm hurting,'" said Jeannie. "'I can't sleep. I don't want to disappoint anybody, but I just can't go on anymore.'"
Matt's dreams had been destroyed and his mother was crushed. And even though there was no proof that Matthew personally downloaded those nine pictures, it would be difficult to prove his innocence. Novak said that the pictures alone were practically all the evidence the police needed.
"I thought his chances of winning were probably 20 percent," said Novak.
"They didn't care that I denied it," Matthew said. "They just kept on asking me and kept on thinking that I did it. They just had it built into their mind that this kid is guilty."
What is so frightening about Matt's case? It could happen to anyone.
"The computer had accessed a 'Yahoo' account where there was child pornography," Andrew Thomas, Maricopa County district attorney said. "That was the basis for the search warrants issued by a court."
Yet, the evidence submitted by the Phoenix police department did not identify a specific user. Matt's clean reputation, his good grades and protective family could not stand up to the cold fact that child porn was on that computer. The police and the district attorney had the incriminating photos from the Bandys' computer and the prosecutors were determined to send Matt away.
Matthew Bandy found himself outmatched in the national campaign against child pornography -- harsh laws designed to keep track of pedophiles and punish them severely.
"They didn't care that I denied it, they just kept on asking me and kept on thinking that I did it," he said. "They just had it built in their mind that this kid is guilty, and we're going to make sure that he's convicted. No matter what the means are."
The Bandy family contends that Thomas was on a mission and that his desire to convict was so strong that he ignored important evidence -- like the fact that Matthew passed a lie detector test. The fact that the test indicated that Matt was telling the truth wasn't taken into account.
And that's when the Bandy family really began to fight back. They hired two polygraph examiners who confirmed Matthew was telling the truth. Then they ordered two psychiatric evaluations which concluded that Matthew had no perverted tendencies.
ABC's Jim Avila asked Thomas about the results of the lie detectors tests and Matt's psychiatric evaluations.
"Quite frankly, criminal defendants are not famous for being forthcoming with the facts," Thomas explained. "I'm not a big believer in polygraph tests. And certainly, they're not admissible in court. At the end of the day, we certainly felt there was a good faith reason to go forward with the prosecution." (Click here to read excerpts of Jim Avila's interview with Thomas.)
Despite the positive polygraphs and psychiatric exams, the district attorney pressed on. So the Bandys and their attorney tackled the most difficult question on the table. If Matthew didn't put the pictures on the computer, how did they get there?
For that answer, they turned to computer forensic expert Tammi Loehrs.
"If you have an Internet connection, high speed, through, let's say, your cable company, or through the phone company, that computer is always on, and basically you have an open doorway to the outside," Loehrs said. "So the home user has no idea who's coming into their computer."
Loehrs went into the Bandys' computer and what she found could frighten any parent -- more than 200 infected files, so-called backdoors that allowed hackers to access the family computer from remote locations, no where near Matthew's house.
"They could be on your computer and you'd never know it," she said.
Loehrs says she does not believe that Matthew uploaded those images onto his computer "based on everything I know and everything I've seen on that hard drive."
But police still had those pictures, and the harsh child porn laws made going to court risky for Matthew.
"All the jury would know is that there were these images on the computer," Matthew said. "And here's me sitting in the courtroom … let's blame him because he was on the computer, obviously he did it."
Even if he was only convicted on one count, Matthew would have faced 10 years in jail, and have his "life ruined," said Novak.
"We had no faith," said Jeannie Bandy. "Our lawyers had no faith. We were told he more than likely would end up in jail."
So the Bandys took a deal from the prosecution. In exchange for dropping all counts of child pornography, Matthew pleaded guilty to the strange charge of distributing obscene materials to minors -- a "Playboy" magazine to his classmates.
"To be precise, he was charged with showing [a Playboy magazine to other 16-year-olds] before school, at lunch and after school," Greg Bandy said.
But the Bandy family nightmare was not over. While the prosecution deal offered no jail time for Matthew, he would still be labeled a sex offender. Under Arizona law and in most states around the country, sex crimes carry with them a life of branding. Matthew would be forced to register as a sex offender everywhere he lived, for the rest of his life.
"I have to stay away from children," said Matthew. "I cannot be around any area where there might be minors, including the mall, or the movies, or restaurants or even church. To go to church I have to have written consent from our priest, I have to sit in a different pew, one that doesn't have a child sitting in it."
The judge couldn't believe the prosecution was insisting on sex offender status and invited Matthew to appeal. "20/20" was there when two years of fear and misery finally ended. A message arrived from the judge, ironically on the computer, informing them that Matthew would not be labeled a sex offender. Matt and his parents had won his life back.
In the den of the Bandy home sits the family computer, now unplugged from the Internet. The Bandys learned that, for them, the Web is simply too dangerous.
"It means that computers are not safe," said Jeannie. "I don't want to have one in my house. Under even under the strictest rules and the strictest security, your computer is vulnerable."
24/7 coverage of breaking news and live events
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article may need to be rewritten to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards . You can help . The talk page may contain suggestions. ( May 2021 )
Generally legal with certain extreme exceptions
Partially legal, under some broad restrictions, or ambiguous status
Article 313. (Obscene or Indecent Publications)
A person who publicly distributes, displays or traffics in writings, images, posters, films, possession, objects or other communications that are obscene or grossly indecent, is guilty of obscenity, a Class 1 petty offence, punishable with a definite term of imprisonment of not less than 6 months and not more than 12 months, or a fine of 20,001 – 50,000 Nakfas , to be set in intervals of 2,500 Nakfas.
It is not an offence under sub-Article (1) where the conduct takes place in private, or where the material is artistic, literary or scientific in character.
(2) A person who produces or participates in the production of, or trafficks in, publishes, broadcasts, procures, imports, exports or in any way abets pornography contrary to subsection (1) commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine of not less than twenty thousand dalasis or imprisonment not exceeding ten years or both .
Article 281. (Further Offences Relating to Obscenity)
Any person who: (a) for the purposes of or by way of trade, or for the purposes of distribution or public exhibition, makes, produces, or has in his possession any one or more obscene writings, drawings, prints, paintings, printed matter, pictures, posters, emblems, photographs, cinematograph films, or any other obscene objects [...] : shall be guilty of a misdemeanour.
Article 166. (Traffic in obscene publication)
Any person who: (a) for the purpose of or by way of trade or for the purpose of distribution or public exhibition, makes, produces or has in his possession any one or more obscene writings, drawings, prints, paintings, printed matter, pictures, posters, emblems, photographs, cinematograph -films or any other objects or any other object tending to corrupt morals [...] : is guilty of a misdemeanour, and is liable, to imprisonment for two years or to a fine of seven thousand shillings .
Article 260. (Sale of Obscene Books etc.)
Whoever, sells, distributes, possession, imports or prints, or makes for sale or hire or willfully exhibits to public view any obscene writing, book, newspaper, film, gramophone record or similar article, drawing, painting, representation or figure or attempts or offers so to do or has in his or her possession any such obscene book or other thing for the purpose of sale, distribution or public exhibition, commits an offence, and upon conviction, shall be sentenced to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or with a fine or with both .
Article 235. (Sale etc. of Obscene Books etc)
Whoever sells or distributes, imports or prints, or makes for sale or hire or willfully exhibits to public view any obscene writing, book, newspaper, film, gramophone record or similar article, drawing, painting, representation or figure or attempts or offers so to do or has in his possession any such obscene book or other thing for the purpose of sale, distribution or public exhibition, commits an offence and shall on conviction, be punished with imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or with fine or with both .
Any person who: (a) for the purpose of or by way of trade or for the purpose of distribution or public exhibition, makes, produces or has in his possession any one or more obscene writings, drawings, prints, paintings, printed matter, pictures» posters, emblems, photographs, cinematograph -films or any other objects or any other object tending to corrupt morals [...] : is guilty of a misdemeanour, and is liable, to imprisonment for two years or to a fine of two thousand shillings .
Article 177. (Obscene matters or things)
Any person who makes, produces or has in his possession any one or more obscene writings, drawings, prints, paintings, printed matter, pictures, posters, emblems, photographs, cinematograph films or any other object tending to corrupt morals is guilty of a misdemeanour and is liable to imprisonment for five years or to a fine of not less than fifteen thousand penalty units nor more than seventy-five thousand penalty units .
Article 263. (Illegal dissemination of pornographic materials or items)
Illegal manufacture, sale as well as, dissemination of pornographic materials or items, as well as, printed publications, films and videos, images or other pornographic objects, and advertising, is punished with a fine in the amount of 200 to 400 minimal salaries , or with arrest for the term of up to 2 months , or with imprisonment for the term of up to 2 years
Article 381. (Lewd and lascivious conduct )
A defendant shall be guilty of the offence of lewd and lascivious conduct, if the defendant: (b) Sells, manufactures, issues, distributes, displays or otherwise deals in obscene material.
Article 476. (Computer pornography )
A defendant shall be guilty of the offence of computer pornography, if the defendant: (a) Publishes and distributes an obscene photograph or picture on the computer or over
Sex Sis
Erin Andrews Fappening
Asian Handjobs