2 Teens being prosecuted for child pornography..."racy" photos

[Digital Masta]

http://news.com.com/2100-1030_3-6157857.html?part=rss&tag=2547-1_3-0-5&subj=news

a little something:

What: Teenagers taking risque photos of themselves are prosecuted for violating child pornography laws.

When: Florida state appeals court rules on January 19.

Outcome: A 2-1 majority upholds conviction on grounds the girl produced a photograph featuring the sexual conduct of a child.

What happened, according to court documents:

Combine unsupervised teenagers, digital cameras, and e-mail, and, given sufficient time, you'll end up with risque photographs on a computer somewhere.
There's a problem with that: Technically, those images constitute child pornography. That's what 16-year old Amber and 17-year old Jeremy, her boyfriend, both residents of the Tallahassee, Fla., area, learned firsthand. (Court documents include only their initials, A.H. and J.G.W., so we're using these pseudonyms to make this story a little easier to read.)

On March 25, 2004, Amber and Jeremy took digital photos of themselves naked and engaged in unspecified "sexual behavior." The two sent the photos from a computer at Amber's house to Jeremy's personal e-mail address. Neither teen showed the photographs to anyone else.

a little ridiculous, no?

[Urban~Ninja]

Course this is ridiculous, alot of my friends have provocative pictures of their GF's on their home computers or laptops, none being naked rest assured but i think the moral is the same.

Then again i guess the line is thin between provocative and pornographic.

[RandomPasserby]

Those vile child porn distributors deserve everything they get for being part of the satan worshipping child porn rings!

[Jetsetlemming]

I'm curious how they got caught. Parent of J.G.W. ratted him out while he was looking at her picture? Or he looked at them on a school computer? Or he walked up to a local cop and said "Hey man! I have naked pictures of my 16 year old girlfriend, and she has some of me!"
Either way, it IS ridiculous, but I can see why it was upheld. If it wasn't, then you could have internet porn sites featuring underage girls as long as the girls themselves were taking the pictures. These two teens should get off with a slap on the wrist and waiving of the sex predator lists, though, most assuredly.

[Kaji]

Agreed with Lemming for the most part. The whole reason behind child porn laws is that they're not old enough to fully comprehend the consequences of participating in pornography, and people don't want children having to suffer for years because what seemed like a perfectly fine idea to a teen/preteen who wanted to appear more mature turned out to become years of humiliation and uncertainty.

However as all participants were underage, there doesn't appear to have been any attempt to distribute it, and there was no malicious intent, I'd be in favor of minimal penalties as well. Make an example of them, yes, but don't put them on the same plane as [serial] rapists.

[Jetsetlemming]

They WERE 16/17, and dating, only sending the stuff to themselves, Kaji. >_> I think they understood the consequences of what they were doing with each other. They're certainly old enough to be having sex, I dare say they're old enough to realize what sharing dirty pictures is.

[Y.T.]

Land of the free.. Fuck yeah.

It's so ridiculous. The politicians were in a legal frenzy, shooting fish in the barrel
(Like.. what's easier than smiting perverts (and few unfortunates who get in the way).
Everyone's cheering. No opposition. Pretty brave. They should try to take on big business..

Makes me wonder what's worse ... this, or the British pervert (he did jail time) who went into the can (not sure what term. At least a year I think) for photoshopping pictures of adult performers to look younger...

WTF is wrong with that? Wide availability of porn decreases the number of sex crimes...
(So, maybe if someone could produce child porn without harming any actual kids, it might be advantageous to make it legal)

[Jetsetlemming]

Because children should not be sexualized by adults, no ifs, ands, or buts, and any adult who expresses sexual interest in children should be locked up for a very, very long time.

[雨]

Hey!

I was expecting to see some "racy photos" in here :(

[Y.T.]

Hmm.

Imho, imaginary children (those that never lived.. i.e. are only illustrations) can be depicted in any manner).

It's not harming anyone. Shouldn't be illegal.

Though this thread is about idiocy of a different kind. I hope they let them go, and give those kids some kind of reparation for emotional stress caused..


Because children should not be sexualized by adults, no ifs, ands, or buts, and any adult who expresses sexual interest in children should be locked up for a very, very long time.


Shouldn't it be rather that we imprison only people who actually attempt sexual contact with children. As far as I know, fetishes aren't a matter of choice, so locking up everyone with pedophiliac tendencies seems kind of unjust, esp. if the individual never attempted anything untoward.

I was expecting to see some "racy photos" in here

I suggest you google them. Or start at *edited*
For racy movies, there is a fair number of bittorrents. Piratebay. It's in Sweden .. :)

*note by meneerdijk: No linking to porn please*

[Kaji]

They WERE 16/17, and dating, only sending the stuff to themselves, Kaji. >_> I think they understood the consequences of what they were doing with each other. They're certainly old enough to be having sex, I dare say they're old enough to realize what sharing dirty pictures is.

Just because they realize what it is doesn't mean they realize the full scope of their actions. They're not legally adults for a reason. Now, if you want to argue why the age of majority should be lowered to 14-16, please be my guest...

[Jetsetlemming]

Nah, I was arguing there's a difference between making commercial porn and selling it/making it public, and making a home video in the bedroom, which is what they did. Those unforseen consequences of the actions of being in porn go right out the window in this situation. I'm positive these two had every idea in the world what they were doing and the consequences, except for the one where they get arrested and tried and convicted for child porn, of course. >_> They weren't doing it like normal... they were just fooling around together and had a camera as a new toy.

[Hatsumomo]

Putting it on the Internet was just a bad idea. First of all, that's just asking to be fucked in the ass hard by humiliation. Secondly, what if somebody 18 or over stumbled on those photographs (and wasn't actually trolling for child porn) and got caught? Now they're serving a long-ass prison sentence for possession of kiddie porn.

[Y.T.]

Sending dirty photos to one's inbox isn't exactly "putting it on the internet".
Only people who could get to see it.. are those who regularily snoop on other's mail.
Which is.. quite possibly a felony. Or so I think. It certainly is a crime to bug someone's phone or bedroom-

BTW. What is "literary bitch" ?

[Silverhawk]

When it comes to cases like these, I always say that you have to base it on the impact of the "crime". Did it cause either of them any harm? Are any of them mentally unstable now? etc.

My favourite line of the argument is this:
Further, if these pictures are ultimately released, future damage may be done to these minors' careers or personal lives.
WTF do they think they are doing to them NOW?

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

Shouldn't it be rather that we imprison only people who actually attempt sexual contact with children. As far as I know, fetishes aren't a matter of choice, so locking up everyone with pedophiliac tendencies seems kind of unjust, esp. if the individual never attempted anything untoward.

For those that just harbor the simple fetish, no, they shouldn't be locked up and sent away. However, the ones that actually do something about, even just downloading child porn for their own enjoyment, should be punished. They may not have had any part in the production of it, but they are still ensuring that there is a demand for it.

[Jetsetlemming]

At least their names aren't released. How rare is that, for people in fucked up situations like these to maintain privacy under media scrutiny?

[Angelyne]

Ok, let me get this straight...

Assuming all age of consent laws are followed:

- it's legal to see your partner naked in person

- it's legal to have (consensual) sex with your partner

- it's illegal to see a naked picture of your partner


Does not compute

[Kaji]

Angelyne: AoC has no bearing on porn laws, and technically nude pictures of sexual partners are porn, no matter how you slice it.

[SlickWilly440]

:rofl:Getting charged with child pornography of yourself!. How Ironic!:rofl:

[Jetsetlemming]

Angelyne: AoC has no bearing on porn laws, and technically nude pictures of sexual partners are porn, no matter how you slice it.
Well, not all nude pictures are porn. However, the fact that THESE nude pictures were taken while the teens in question were having sex with each other doesn't help. :blank:

[Kaji]

I agree, all nudity is not pornographic. At the same time, however, when it's in a sexual context it's hard to argue it's not pornographic...

[Hatsumomo]

BTW. What is "literary bitch" ?

"Literary" refers to literature, in this case the novel "Memoirs of a Geisha." Bitch is what the character Hatsumomo is in the book.

To reiterate, Hatsumomo is the best bitch in literature. :wave:

[Jay]

Now I've seen it all...

[SlickWilly440]

I agree, all nudity is not pornographic.

Like I always say if you get a boner looking at it, then it's porn! Come to think of it I am going to go help myself to a National Geographic, excuse me.

[Jetsetlemming]

There's nothing *somebody* out there can't get off on. Nothing. *shiver*

[Kass]

Hmm.

Shouldn't it be rather that we imprison only people who actually attempt sexual contact with children. As far as I know, fetishes aren't a matter of choice, so locking up everyone with pedophiliac tendencies seems kind of unjust, esp. if the individual never attempted anything untoward.


People who download and view child pornography keep the people who exploit children in business, which would be why downloading child pornography is illegal. It isn't to punish fetishes, but rather to try discourage and diminish the market for child pornography.

No one is locking up everyone with "pedophiliac tendencies." They are locking up people who support the child pornography industry by demand and with monetary support.

In this case, technically the kids broke the law, but this is one of those times where the punishment is way out of scale. This would be yet another case why mandatory minimum sentences that don't allow for judicial discretion are bad for justice.

This case also proves once again that teenagers shouldn't be allowed cameras. Teens do stupid things. They can't help it. It's what teenagers do. By denying them cameras, at least most their stupidity can't haunt them the rest of their lives.

[Mastiker]

This case also proves once again that teenagers shouldn't be allowed cameras. Teens do stupid things. They can't help it. It's what teenagers do. By denying them cameras, at least most their stupidity can't haunt them the rest of their lives.

Correction: Stupid Teenagers shouldn't be allowed cameras.

Stupid Teenagers with Hopes to become Serious Photographers should be allowed cameras. :innocent:

[Kaji]

Correction: Stupid Teenagers shouldn't be allowed cameras.

Stupid Teenagers with Hopes to become Serious Photographers should be allowed cameras. :innocent:

Correction: All teenagers are stupid. They just haven't advanced to a point where they can look back and realize it.

Teenagers shouldn't be allowed to have cameras.

[Random]

And those who'd give up a little liberty for temporary safety deserve neither, né?

As far as the original topic goes, I agree with JSL - a slap on the wrist, not jail time or registration as sex offenders.

This reminds me of the story where a 15 year old girl took naked (erotic) pictures of herself and was then charged for sexually abusing a child and possession of child pornography: link (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/webguide/internetlife/2004-03-29-child-self-porn_x.htm)

Kass, as far as punishing those who download child porn goes, how about the guy who viewed over 300 images, but was not punished in any way because he did not know that his browser saved the files, and thus did not know he was in possession of child pornography, which is what is actually illegal: link (http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1168941736750).

If you're looking for a few more comments on this story, try here (http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/10/1752233) (slashdot.org).

[Jetsetlemming]

This reminds me of the story where a 15 year old girl took naked (erotic) pictures of herself and was then charged for sexually abusing a child and possession of child pornography: link (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/webguide/internetlife/2004-03-29-child-self-porn_x.htm)

:eyepop: I mean, that was worse than this case, she was spreading them around online, but charging her for "abusing a child".... for what she did herself? O_o Does this mean they can arrest emo's that cut themselves for assault with a deadly weapon?

[Kass]

Kass, as far as punishing those who download child porn goes, how about the guy who viewed over 300 images, but was not punished in any way because he did not know that his browser saved the files, and thus did not know he was in possession of child pornography, which is what is actually illegal: link (http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1168941736750).


He's surfing kiddie porn websites and you want me to have sympathy for him? No way. He got what he deserved. He knew what he was doing was wrong.

Jetsetlemming, cutters aren't arrested, but they can be committed to a mental institution involuntarily because they are a danger to themselves.

[Jetsetlemming]

He got what he deserved. He knew what he was doing was wrong.

He was found "not guilty". :blank:

[Kass]

I know and he should have been convicted. I don't feel sorry one bit for him being arrested, charged or put through the expense of defending himself.

[Jetsetlemming]

I said that because you said "he got what he deserved".
And I don't think Adam was asking for sympathy for the pervert. >_> Just bringing it up as an odd and sad example of a failing of the legal system within the topic.

[InSo]

Since when has the law EVER taken common sense into account?