News, Nudist dad facing child porn charges says photos are 'family portraits' (legal, attorney)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A South Florida nudist, arrested on charges that he helped take pornographic photographs of his three young daughters and shared them with other men, is putting on an unusual defense.
Brian Martens, 53, who was living at a nudist colony in Palm Beach County, is arguing that there is nothing pornographic about the pictures and that they are regular family portraits of a naturist family.
This is stupid. Of course naturalists are naked. No, it's not porn. That's the whole point.
I'm not in any way a naturalist but that doesn't mean I don't know that for 99% of human existence that's how humans looked and that's how we walked around.
There is plenty of case law establishing that nudity does not equal pornography; there has to be "lascivious exhibition of genitalia" or something of that nature to qualify. So if the facts are as presented I'd like to think this will be an open-and-shut case for the defense, but after all it is Florida.
There is plenty of case law establishing that nudity does not equal pornography; there has to be "lascivious exhibition of genitalia" or something of that nature to qualify. So if the facts are as presented I'd like to think this will be an open-and-shut case for the defense, but after all it is Florida.
I would agree in theory, but the Feds have attempted to expand the definition of "child pornography" to include even children who a fully clothed. There was a case a few years ago were they went after a professional photographer for taking model shots for teenagers. He was hired by the teens parents. These were kids trying to get in to modeling. They were wearing bathing suits and dresses. The Feds claimed the images were "provocative" and therefor child porn. I don't know what the end result was, as it was awaiting trial the last time I heard about it. Oddly enough, this case was also in Florida. I wonder if it is the same US attorney that is prosecuting this case.
There was a similar state case in Minnesota which cost the Minnesota State Mankato football coach his job. He had video of his kids taking a bath and goofing around after getting out of the tube, a tech at the college saw the video while fixing his phone and turned it over to the local police. The DA filed charges, but the judge dismissed them. What is funny is the DA in the case was furious and he used the exact same wording as the US Attorney in this case. He said "it should be up to a jury to decide". No, it should not. In a court of law in order to get past the preliminary hearing you first need to proof the law was broken. The jury's job is suppose to determine the defendants guilt, not to interpret the law itself.
I will note that the linked article mentions that a grand jury (and the father's own attorney) thought at least one photograph was 'pornographic' (close up of a daughter's genital area). The father claimed he did not know of that particular photograph, saying it was done by a professional photographer hired to take the photos. Said 'professional' photographer is now serving 60 years for possession and distribution of child pornography (the article notes one prior conviction in New Jersey for such).
It could have all been innocent, as claimed by the father. Yet, even then, I have a problem with a father sharing such photographs with unrelated men. I also have a problem with the thought that these children (then aged 8 to 12) had no say in the matter: perhaps they, upon reaching age 18, would rather not have had nude photos of themselves distributed to strangers by their father.
This is stupid. Of course naturalists are naked. No, it's not porn. That's the whole point.
I'm not in any way a naturalist but that doesn't mean I don't know that for 99% of human existence that's how humans looked and that's how we walked around.
It could have all been innocent, as claimed by the father. Yet, even then, I have a problem with a father sharing such photographs with unrelated men. I also have a problem with the thought that these children (then aged 8 to 12) had no say in the matter: perhaps they, upon reaching age 18, would rather not have had nude photos of themselves distributed to strangers by their father.
This 100%. While the porn charge might be a stretch, this whole thing is still really creepy. I certainly would not have wanted to walk around naked when I was a kid, and I definitely would not have wanted people taking pictures of me in that state. Adults are free to do as they please, but they should not compel their children in to such lifestyle. That goes for nudist colonies, extreme churches, cults, etc.
This 100%. While the porn charge might be a stretch, this whole thing is still really creepy. I certainly would not have wanted to walk around naked when I was a kid, and I definitely would not have wanted people taking pictures of me in that state. Adults are free to do as they please, but they should not compel their children in to such lifestyle. That goes for nudist colonies, extreme churches, cults, etc.
You were compelled as a kid into your lifestyle as was everyone. Hind sight and your views based on that lifestyle give you that attitude.
That being stated I remember going to school with nudists back in the 70's and they were the most normal people you would ever meet. Not a lifestyle for me mind you.
I suspect there are a who lot more pedophiles as a percentage of the population that wander around with their clothes on than off.
Prosectutorial misconduct in a case like this might be likely,
You were compelled as a kid into your lifestyle as was everyone. Hind sight and your views based on that lifestyle give you that attitude.
That being stated I remember going to school with nudists back in the 70's and they were the most normal people you would ever meet. Not a lifestyle for me mind you.
I suspect there are a who lot more pedophiles as a percentage of the population that wander around with their clothes on than off.
Prosectutorial misconduct in a case like this might be likely,
So you do not think that the fact, as reported in the linked article, that the 'photographer' (hired by the father to take the nude shots of the underaged daughter) pled guilty to possession and distribution of child pornography is relevant? The guy is doing 60 years of prison time. He pled guilty, I assume, to avoid an even worse punishment. Said photographer had been convicted of such once before, in New Jersey. But you think that this all means misconduct by the DA? By the Grand Jury?
There is plenty of case law establishing that nudity does not equal pornography; there has to be "lascivious exhibition of genitalia" or something of that nature to qualify. So if the facts are as presented I'd like to think this will be an open-and-shut case for the defense, but after all it is Florida.
Go back and read the whole article.
Another guy got busted for child porn on the internet etc, he ran a photo studio and had taken pics for the dad (some of which were indeed pornographic) of the daughters.
The dads defense is that he only asked for the naturist photos and didn't know anything about the OTHER ones.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
