0

Curious about this -- I'm not a buyer of such things. A growing trend online that has been booming is females selling pictures of their feet online, very often to male buyers. If the seller happens to be a minor, is this illegal? Feet can be sexualized but it is not a part of the body that is considered nudity -- you could also sell "hand pics," "ear pics," "stomach pics," etc.

But given the popularity of foot fetishism as the #1 fetish there is, feet remain most popular. What's the deal here though? If someone over 18 purchased "feet pics" from someone under 18 who willingly sold them of their own free will, is this a crime?

Minor is a term for anyone under 18 in the States you could argue, but what merit does that have for something of this nature? Just to note that this referring to the act of the purchase/sale of content, not of anything outside the nature of the transaction itself. Like for example it's obvious this does not imply a close relationship with a minor that is sexual just by means of buying said content any more than this would with an adult also if the only details surrounding such an act is of purchase and nothing further/personal.

Some imply this is "foot porn" but images of feet pics alone are not illegal to view, possess or purchase in any common situation.

1

Yes, maybe

In Australia, child abuse material is classified as the sexualised depiction of persons under 16 (or in some cases 18). This applies under both State and Commonwealth laws.

Common charges in NSW will be possessing, disseminating or producing child abuse material under s 91(H) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).

Further Commonwealth offences can be found in circumstances where a communications carrier has been used for the purposes of delivering child abuse material. Within this field, there are subtle variations in circumstances.

The court would need to decide if the pictures were a “sexualised depiction”. Context matters.

I don’t know of any cases on point but convictions have been secured for sexualised cartoons of children and pictures of fully-clothed children in sexual poses.

0

There are two separate issues: is it legal for a minor to sell stuff, and are pictures of feet illegal? It is generally legal for minors to sell stuff, since minors can own stuff. However, minors are not bound by contracts in the same way as an adult would be, for example a minor who signs up for a credit card and charges a bunch of stuff then refuses to pay cannot be legally forced to pay their debts the same way that an adult can be. The contract restriction is not symmetrical: a minor can buy stuff and the adult cannot take the money and run, saying "hahaha you are a minor". The contract is (potentially) voidable by the minor, and not always. The minor would not suffer any legal consequences for selling their stuff. But their legal guardian could forbid the sale. It is not illegal to buy stuff from a minor, but it is risky just in case you are required to give the stuff back. "Selling a picture" probably means selling a license to copy a picture (without which one might be sued for copyright infringement), and that license is a contract. A license typically grants irrevocable permission to do whatever with the picture, in exchange for some consideration – but "irrevocable" is problematic for child contracts. So theoretically, the sale could be voided by the courts.

You can read up on child porn here (safe for work: Dept. of Justice website). The forbidden stuff involves sexually explicit conduct and does not include ordinary pictures, regardless of a buyer's intended actions with said pictures.

3
  • You are concentrating on the contract part of it. But a child cannot be engaging in pornographic cinematography even with a parental permission. So a parent cannot contract to have their child participate in a "willing" pornographic production. Involvement of a parent would side-step the contract issue, but it would not make child porn any more legal. The question is whether or not a picture of feet can be deemed to be porn. – grovkin Sep 16 '20 at 19:24
  • If you can make the legal argument that a foot picture is against the law, you should write that up as an answer. – user6726 Sep 16 '20 at 19:35
  • i did. according to the timestamps, i did it 8 minutes before your comment. – grovkin Sep 16 '20 at 19:59
0

"Child porn" is not pictures of children naked per se. A medical text book might be able to publish pictures of children with some peculiar skin conditions.

Child porn is suggestive pictures of children created to produce sexual arousal. If a picture of a minor's feet is clearly meant to cause sexual arousal, it would be child porn. I am not sure how that would be established, but that's besides the point. That's why there is an "if".

1
  • some history textbooks contain depictions of nude children... maltreated, unfed, children, that survived Auschwitz. – Trish Sep 16 '20 at 22:31

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.