Yes, and most will be struck down either for running afoul of the first Amendment or contravening 17 US Code section 512.

You don't have to have clairvoyance, dumbfuck, you just have to order and review the legislative history - it's a public record.

If you're horrified by a a nineteen year old fucking with a fifteen year old and pulling out a camera phone, I suggest you go buy a pearl necklace to clutch. Being dicks and distributing the video to other people is about the only thing in this article that rises to the level of "predictably obnoxious" - let alone…

I was addressing someone making the claim that outside the context of a case dealing with minors (thus getting into child pornography laws), filming someone in flagrante delicato is not generally illegal.

No shit.

Yes, I was pointing that isn't really what the law was designed to address, though it does encompass it.

Cite the statute champ. Unless you have a reasonable expectation of privacy there's nothing illegal about filming someone having sex. Also, laws like these are state specific so bandying about "definitely illegal" actually makes you sound dumber than usual, which is impressive.

If points were award for building strawman arguments, conflating children with teenagers, are just being a dumb cunt, I'm pretty sure you'd win the game!

Most of the 40 men, after looking at a series of images where body mass was the same but waist-hip-ratio changed, preferred the WHR of .7 as expected.

It's not illegal criminally nor actionable civilly to use someone's likeness for a non-commercial purpose. If you come to my hotel room and I pull out a camera and start filming you I can distribute that video as I like without your consent unless I am doing so for a commercial purpose. I'm guessing you're not a…

Do you think the distribution charge should be equally applicable to the 19 year old if he was 17? Why or why not?

Porno is not how normal life works, genius, it's a commercial enterprise. First of all, they have signed waivers because they are going to sell the video and there are different rules for using someone's likeness in a commercial enterprise. Those rules don't apply to free distribution for a non-commercial reason.

Probably not other than the bizarre "it's legal for you to fuck her but not for you two to film yourselves doing it" angle. First, the consent issue (for filming) is murky at best. But, even assuming there was not consent, you get into some gray privacy issues. What's your right to privacy fucking somebody in their…

If you consensually fuck someone 36-to-47 months older than you while their friend films it in front of you how are you being exploited?

I absolutely do not think that was the purpose of the law. Those laws significantly predate the rise of camera phones and ever-present ability for people to film themselves (obviously camcorders were around but much less common and used). I think they squarely targeted pedophilia, not dumb teenagers making stupid…

No, notice that she claims that. They claim the opposite (I also think it's pretty unbelievable, unless someone was hiding in a closet or something, that she didn't notice someone was filming).

How would this case be any different if the men were 17? The laws (for filming, and possessing the video) would apply exactly the same. That's why it's nonsensical.

You need to try harder to suck less.

You're describing a federal preemption issue, not statutory interpretation. And no, filming anyone under 18 (I assume you mean naked or in a sexual context?) is not illegal always no matter who films it or why - go watch the Blue Lagoon with a naked 14-year-old Brooke Shields in it. Or American Beauty. The law does,…

No, because pedophiles generally aren't looking for a video of a 15 year old fucking a 19 year old. If they were, they'd be ephebophiles.