At what point does an illegal image become just a bunch of pixels? Obviously 4k child pornography images are illegal, but reducing the resolution until the entire image was one pixel would make it okay, because it's just a pixel. At what resolution is the line drawn?
You should google sorites paradox.
you have an approaching court date, huh?
I'm just curious as to what you guys think. This isn't a question based on real life.
Depends how rich and important are you, how much will the judges be paid
This sounds like a problem for a jury of [someone's] peers to wrestle with, not internet philosophers.
seek legal advice
Legally speaking, it's up to the judge or jury to decide on a case-by-case situation if that image is illegal. Even pixel art can be illegal if it's based on a real child.
I personally find the law retarded as it would be legal to post 4K videos of a child being tortured and beheaded by ISIS as long they don't do it sexually but you can still be arrested for nudist family pictures.
I been wondering this for a long time. I find the line between pornography and art very interesting and quite amusing tbh. But nobody seems to have the balls to actually experiment with this blurred phenomenon. Kudos for asking. As you can see, most people are just critical and dismissive.
Don't even bother deleting the files, kid. We're arresting you tomorrow, and the judge is putting you into fucked in the ass rape dungeon hell hole prison jail timeout funtime. You're getting 1 year for every pixel we find, so lube that hairy asshole up with your tears and sweaty shame.
I'm passionately fucking my brother, what the fuck are you going to do about it?
Having such a thing as illegal pictures in the internet era is fucking ridiculous and pointless.
It's just a buch of bytes. I don't care if it is a picture of my ass or a 10yo masturbating…
An illegal number is a number that represents information which is illegal to possess, utter, propagate, or otherwise transmit in some legal jurisdiction. Any piece of digital information is representable as a number; consequently, if communicating a specific set of information is illegal in some way, then the number may be illegal as well.
in other words, laws against information are fucktarded
Interesting question, OP…
I choose to believe that this is a very pixellated depiction of a Jewish man sniffing a plate of strawberry jelly
How did you know?
137x84, that's where i draw the line
People are deluded and can't tell the difference between pixels and a child. So the acceptable resolution is the one at which you can no longer tell it's a child.
When a jury of your peers decides it in a court of law, guilt-wracked pedophile.
Can I watch, Master Trips? Please?
There's no way someone that young could possibly swallow something that large!
At which 50% of control group determines the image represents sexual content of a minor
depends on your audience. for legal reasons, this although I'd question the legality of storing and presenting potentially illegal content.
I was permabanned from halfchan about 3 years ago for uploading a resized screenshot of a post. the offending image had become 10 pixels tall. just goes to show how SJW that shit site has become over the past few years.
At what resolution is the line drawn?
that might depend on your judge
I like this answer
the acceptable resolution is the one at which you can no longer tell it's a child.
Half right. If you can not tell what it is, *and* it can not be converted back to what it was enough to be recognizable, then it is legal. That is the Gmask paradox. It has to be not only pixelated (or otherwise digitally manipulated) to the point of unrecognizability, but it has to be irreversible.
At what resolution is the line drawn?
At what point does non-pixelated *implied* illegality cross the line?