you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 21 points 3 months ago (7 children)

I don't have a child, but if I a did have one, and they walked naked in front of the webcam, could I go after Google for CP?

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago (6 children)

    Iirc child nudity isn't enough for something to be considered porn. It has to be gratuitous. Not sure if that is the same for transmitting online or not.

    It's fakin weird by today's standards though and is probably handled very differently from one place to another

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    Child nudity, even if its medically necessary, is 100% enough for google to delete everything you have with them and to call the police on you, labeling you a pedophile.

    Because its already happened

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (2 children)

    Perhaps I didn't remember correctly. I'm curious how movies have gotten away with it

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

    Movies arent typically made by google.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago*

    I don't follow where you are going with this. The premise is Google recording images and having a naked child in them, which is no different than named children appearing in movies without it being CP... Somehow.

    And what your response to my comment doesn't seem to address or explain is why those movies got to be allowed when they have naked children in them. At least it's not obvious

    So what is it that makes recording naked kids permissible and what doesn't.

    Google doesn't make movies doesn't answer or explain anything that I can figure out

  • source
  • parent