Girl posts nude pics, is charged with kid porn (Congress, illegal, lawyers)
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.
TRENTON, N.J. - A 14-year-old New Jersey girl has been accused of child pornography after posting nearly 30 explicit nude pictures of herself on MySpace.com — charges that could force her to register as a sex offender if convicted.
The case comes as prosecutors nationwide pursue child pornography cases resulting from kids sending nude photos to one another over cell phones and e-mail. Legal experts, though, could not recall another case of a child porn charge resulting from a teen's posting to a social networking site.
Legal experts, though, could not recall another case of a child porn charge resulting from a teen's posting to a social networking site.
Because legally, its not child porn. Its only child porn if the child was taking photos engaging in sexual acts.
Naked photos in and of itself is not illegal, (no one is posting that it should be legal, it just is), its the sexual act that makes the photos illegal.
Just like the lady that was charged with taking photos of her children in the bathtub, Michael Jacksons photo book, and even Elton John owns such photos.
Prosecutors can charge people all day long, proving the difference between obseen children photos and child porn is a different story.
Because legally, its not child porn. Its only child porn if the child was taking photos engaging in sexual acts.
Naked photos in and of itself is not illegal, (no one is posting that it should be legal, it just is), its the sexual act that makes the photos illegal.
Just like the lady that was charged with taking photos of her children in the bathtub, Michael Jacksons photo book, and even Elton John owns such photos.
Prosecutors can charge people all day long, proving the difference between obseen children photos and child porn is a different story.
That's interesting; I don't know the laws on that. I'm sure it's not a problem if people have pictures of their kids, but is it not child porn if someone else does for sexual purposes? Playboy etc. are generally considered porn though there may not be sexual acts.
That's interesting; I don't know the laws on that. I'm sure it's not a problem if people have pictures of their kids, but is it not child porn if someone else does for sexual purposes? Playboy etc. are generally considered porn though there may not be sexual acts.
This case just seems silly though.
People have been charged with having photos of their own children, one lady charged last year had thousands of them, not sure the outcome of her case but it was the case that had lawyers discussing the issue which I heard being discussed.
The intent of the photo is the issue, if she was engaging in sexual acts, or the photos were created for the sole purpose of exciting the viewer then she would be engaging in porn. If the intent was to show how nice looking she is, (yeah, try to walk a fine line there), then its not..
I guess it's just another sign of how panicky people get about sex in general.
Goes to show how much we need to keep an eye on our own children online and how difficult it is to monitor these websites and why we need stricter laws in regards to online actions.
Because legally, its not child porn. Its only child porn if the child was taking photos engaging in sexual acts.
That's not exactly true. While nudity isn't necessarily pornography, nude photographs that are deemed
by the the average person, applying contemporary community standards, to be taken as a whole, to appeal to the prurient interest,
to depict/describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions[2] specifically defined by applicable state law,
when taken as a whole, lack serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. (This is also known as the (S)LAPS test- [Serious] Literary, Artistic, Political, Scientific.)
Can be considered pornographic under existing law.
But that isn't what I wanted to comment on.
I think that this problem is being inappropriately addressed by law enforcement and the Courts. The laws prohibiting child pornography were intended to protect children from sexual exploitation by adults, not self-exploitation or exploitation by other minors. The reliance of prosecutors in these adult statutes only because they have "no other tools" is just governmental laziness. As they say, let the punishment fit the crime and it about time that legislatures and the Congress establish a proper crime to be punished.
That's not exactly true. While nudity isn't necessarily pornography, nude photographs that are deemed
by the the average person, applying contemporary community standards, to be taken as a whole, to appeal to the prurient interest,
to depict/describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions[2] specifically defined by applicable state law,
when taken as a whole, lack serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. (This is also known as the (S)LAPS test- [Serious] Literary, Artistic, Political, Scientific.)
Can be considered pornographic under existing law.
But that isn't what I wanted to comment on.
I think that this problem is being inappropriately addressed by law enforcement and the Courts. The laws prohibiting child pornography were intended to protect children from sexual exploitation by adults, not self-exploitation or exploitation by other minors. The reliance of prosecutors in these adult statutes only because they have "no other tools" is just governmental laziness. As they say, let the punishment fit the crime and it about time that legislatures and the Congress establish a proper crime to be punished.
Laws were recently loosened up by legislators in Washington (if memory serves me correctly around 2006) leaving such things as cartoons open to intepretation until the Supreme Court ruled that cartoons would follow the same laws as if they were actual individuals.
I completely agree with you though that they are being mis-handled. Its a child, children make mistakes, it should be a learning experience but life long registry is just rediculous. Reminds me of the book "Scarlet Letter"..
Goes to show how much we need to keep an eye on our own children online and how difficult it is to monitor these websites and why we need stricter laws in regards to online actions.
I can see how keeping an eye on your own children would be beneficial, but what type of laws are you proposing? Nothing will prevent a 14-year-old girl from uploading pictures on a public website if she's determined to do it. The Supreme Court has already ruled that websites and message boards (such as City-Data) cannot be held responsible for publicly uploaded content.
we have no boundaries. we have no sense of consequences. she did not start doing that yesterday, how long that been goin on. its like the people yelling bomb bomb at the TSA checkpoint. they think its funny and that the cop putting on those cuffs is some sort of crazy man.
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.
