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.
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,
Read the article. Don't go off the comments of the others that apparantly didn't read it either.
Federal prosecutors say they believe several of the photographs are clearly inappropriate and the final judgment call should lie with a trial jury. A grand jury has already voted there was enough evidence to indict Martens on one count of producing child pornography and one count of receiving child pornography.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Bill Matthewman agreed with the U.S. Attorney's Office after reviewing the photographs during a hearing Wednesday in federal court in West Palm Beach.
"Several of these photos the court has reviewed are lascivious. … They are, in the court's opinion, sexually explicit," Matthewman said.
And don't you just love that a person who has been previously convicted of child porn chose to live in a nudist colony?
Are you assuming all the information in the article is true and nothing was left out?
Basically, the guy that took the photos was involved in child porn which is how this came out when they seized his computer. (he plead guilty and is headed to prison)
He lived in the same community with the family and took some porn shots of the kids (even the dad admits this but claims he only knew about the naturalist ones)
So basically, yeah there were porn shots taken of the kids and nobody is denying this if you read the article...and the police aren't buying the dads denial because of emails etc.
I'm not declaring the dad guilty, maybe he didn't know, we don't have all the facts. However, you and others didn't carefully read the article as was evidenced by your comments.
To declare prosecutorial misconduct and others saying that there weren't porn shots tells me that you guys either didn't read the article of hastily skimmed over it or maybe just focused on the parts the enforced your preconceptions....who knows but sheesh...re-read it, it's not my fault that you guys missed some parts of it.
Sharing the photos with others is what the prosecution is about, and rightly so. Clear and simple: once the photos left the privacy of his home and were shared ... it became child pornography.
It's hard to know whether or not these images legally constitute child pornography. The federal statutes are complex and constantly evolving. There is also a fair amount of room for subjective interpretation on the part of individual prosecutors--which means that some may bring charges while others would not.
One thing is for sure, the unofficial alliance between the religious right and political feminism has likely caused The United States to become the most sexually-repressed and sexually-paranoid culture in the world.
Sharing the photos with others is what the prosecution is about, and rightly so. Clear and simple: once the photos left the privacy of his home and were shared ... it became child pornography.
That's a strange theory.
So whether nude pictures are pornography or not depends on who is viewing them?
Location: NYC based - Used to Live in Philly - Transplant from Miami
2,307 posts, read 2,767,189 times
Reputation: 2610
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velvet Jones
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.
WOW that is absurd!
If that's what the government want, they have to start arresting all those parents who let their kids compete in that kids beauty pageant.
Basically, the guy that took the photos was involved in child porn which is how this came out when they seized his computer. (he plead guilty and is headed to prison)
He lived in the same community with the family and took some porn shots of the kids (even the dad admits this but claims he only knew about the naturalist ones)
So basically, yeah there were porn shots taken of the kids and nobody is denying this if you read the article...and the police aren't buying the dads denial because of emails etc.
I'm not declaring the dad guilty, maybe he didn't know, we don't have all the facts. However, you and others didn't carefully read the article as was evidenced by your comments.
To declare prosecutorial misconduct and others saying that there weren't porn shots tells me that you guys either didn't read the article of hastily skimmed over it or maybe just focused on the parts the enforced your preconceptions....who knows but sheesh...re-read it, it's not my fault that you guys missed some parts of it.
Talk about reading comprehension. Go back and reread my comments. I guess you missed the "in a case like this MIGHT be likely"
Keep smacking your head thou maybe it will clear up your eyesight.
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.
I think that the DA needs to question his own behavior, some people look at a naked body and see art while other can look at the same picture and see porn, it's a subjective issue and it the intent behind the one doing the viewing as to the outcome of the picture. I see nothing wrong in a nude picture of a family at a nudist colony, hence the word NUDIST.
This DA needs to question his own morality instead of someone elses.
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.
