if the public continues to play into the hysteria, many more people will find themselves in jail…it is such a shame what this world is coming too…no common sence used at all in some of these cases…and you are right…the DA and police have no common sence at all when dealing with these cases…my poor grandmother would be facing charges as well if they find a 50 year old picture of me lying on a towel naked in the back yard mind you…for shame for shame…gosh what would happen if they found out that my mom bath me and my brother together and we had to share a room until i was almost a teenager….i need to stop before i am arrested too…..

But, a prosecutor out to make a name for himself isn’t exactly the best judge of what constitutes sexually explicit conduct. And, it makes very little difference whether, as a defendant, you win the case if your life is destroyed in the process.

You’re correct that, not withstanding SCOTUS rulings of the past, child porn doesn’t even have to involve a child in its production. It just needs to look like a child. So, they’re clearly not out to protect children so much as persecute people whose sexual interests they find objectionable.

One of the major problems with U.S. child porn laws, and U.S. law in general, is that it targets the legitimate industry. By simply saddling producers of adult porn with onerous record keeping requirements, they vastly broaden the range of potential targets which can be prosecuted under the child porn laws. In the U.S. you can go to prison for five years, not for producing child porn, but for simply not proving to the government’s satisfaction, that all your models were over age 18. It’s a codified instance of “guilty until proven innocent”.

To government (especially prosecutors), us citizens are the enemy. They aren’t concerned with who they lock up as long as they lock up as many as they can. Their resume resembles the body count statistics from the Vietnam war where innocent villagers were slaughtered to inflate the numbers.

In the US however, mere nudity of children can be considered pornographic and photographs/videos of young adults under the age of 18 engaged in completely normal natural and healthy consensual behavior (the average age of first sexual experience in the US is 14.9; the age of consent varies by state from 14 to 18; and most adolescent psychololgists believe the age should be 15) can be considered child pornography. The US law fails to conform to the international legal standard and the generally accepted definition. It goes beyond protecting children (a good thing) and instead enforces socially conservative “moral values”.

Sooner or later, aspects of the US child pornography laws will be struck down when it applies only to nudity; or only to faked/created/manipulated images; or when it applies to young adults under the age of 18 engaged in consensual sexual behavior. The current laws violate Constitutional freedoms such as right of privacy; freedom of speech; freedom from cruel/unusual punishments; equal protection doctrine; right to a fair trial; freedom from state enforced religion, etc. But in the meantime the lives of individuals who have done no harm to themselves, or to society or to any other person will be utterly destoyed. Just today I read of a man who was sentenced to 24 years in prison for private photographs of young adults aged 16. If the behavior is not illegal and if the behavior is not harmful, how can photographs or videos of the act be illegal?

The real problem is the incredible ignorance in American society when it comes to science in general and especially when it comes to psychology, sexuality, adolescent sexuality, etc. On top of this we have many people who believe that religious values should be imposed by law.

Where is the organization that is lobbying to amend these unjust laws? Where is the organization that is fighting these unjust laws in the legal system? Where is the organization that is trying to educate the population and get the media to address sexuality in a rational way?

Oh and what about that horrible pornographic photo of Jody Foster taken when she was a toddler for the advertisement of Coppertone?

Geesh…!@#$

RT
http://www.anonymity.ru.tc

#50 Aspasia

Hell, ask Max Hardcore. The adult industry has been complaining about this for YEARS but are dismissed by most people because they engage in that “dirty” “naughty” sex stuff.

I followed the FSC fight against the 2257 changes. In stead of saying these laws mostly target them, I should have said that these laws mostly affect them. What the law really does is allow the cops to prosecute child porn cases under child porn laws that don’t involve any child porn at all. The government likes this because finding real child pornographers is hard work.

I actually tried at one point to get the ACLU to take up the issue, on behalf of artistic expression outside the commercial porn industry. I still find it interesting that 2257 requires such onerous record keeping requirements with such severe penalties, that only the commercial porn industry is actually likely to be able to afford the resources necessary to comply. In effect, 2257 sacrifices individually-produced explicit art leaving the highly lucrative commercial porn industry.

However, I’m happy that the FSC challenged it, in any case, even though they lost. 2257 is a perfect example of a law pretending to one thing, but really being something completely different. It’s institutionalized persecution of protected speech simply because…. they can. It’s not like Joe Public is going to come to the rescue of the evil porn industry, protected speech pr not.

There is no end to those who now mindlessly repeat back the words of Oliver Wendell Holmes about shouting fire in a crowded theater to justify an endless list of speech that is now not permitted. The biggest ally the government has in abolishing our rights is the typical U.S. citizen who believes that people can’t be trusted with freedom.

I was actually thinking more of a crime by the person depicted in the picture doing the unmentionable things to the child.
If they are kind enough to provide photographic evidence it’s all to the good.
As for making it a crime just to posses the pictures. Tricky. I don’t believe that just looking at this stuff makes you want to go out and rape kids.
It seems much more likely that people who crave sex with children would like to look at pictures of same.
The argument could be made that if someone likes that sort of thing maybe they are willing to act out on it, so the possession of the pictures should lead to a closer look.
Of course, that is way too close to a creepy ‘pre-crimes’ vibe; and don’t even get started on things like lolicon.

If my position is not too clear that may be because I really don’t know what my position is.

I know I don’t think that pictures of nudity alone, no matter what age, should be criminal.

If you have actual pictures of a child who has been sexually abused…..well, that is disturbing no matter what the motivation, but just because something is disturbing is no reason alone to make it a crime.

I know I don’t think that lolicon or other artwork, even if it depicts the same sort of abuse of a child as the real photos, should be a crime.

So, should possession of pictures of actual child abuse/rape be a crime? If the fictional representations should not, then why would/should the actual pictures be? They would certainly be evidence of a crime, at least for the persons depicted, but…..

If I had to argue for criminal penalties I would say eliminate all for mere nudity, have none for artwork no matter what the subject matter, and for actual photographs of abuse, maybe a misdemeanor charge and confiscation….oh hell, I’ve already thought of several unintended consequences even of such relaxed rules.

Maybe we could go after those who actually harm children and not worry so much about whether someone is ‘getting off’ inappropriately. Of course, just the definition of what is ‘harming children’ can be stretched to cause a lot of grief.

Ceci n’est pas un pipe. Ceci n’est pas un actual sex act, either. It’s a depiction. What’s the point in making the depiction illegal?

Hell, ask Max Hardcore. The adult industry has been complaining about this for YEARS but are dismissed by most people because they engage in that “dirty” “naughty” sex stuff. But then cases like this happen and those same people who cheer laws like this because they think it’s going to get rid of pornography realize that the law isn’t drawing much of a distinction between the general populace and pornography. It’s their turn this time. These laws are often a result of misplaced hysteria and the laws are purposely written to be extremely vague so that innocent people CAN be nabbed.

That way, law enforcement agencies can say, “Look everyone! It’s working! We’re nabbing the evil doers!” Most of these anti-child porn laws are enforced against adult activities under that guise. The new additions to the USC 2257 laws are a perfect example.

This is ridiculous. Who remembers that children’s sunblock with the image of the puppy dog playfully pulling down the young girl’s bathing suit and exposing her bare bottom?

And she was topless too, and that pinky up against the cheek? Rather the coquette look. Arrest every executive at Coppertone. Now.

Regarding your question about the right to privacy–are you suggesting that would extend to owning control over any and all images produced by any person of any person?

I think for pictures taken in private this could be reasonable. For pictures taken in public (i.e. where you have no expectation of privacy) the answer should be no. For one thing, police officers could then use the law to further prevent discovery of bad activities. In other words, if one has an expectation of privacy, one could exert some degree of control over the image. As for the specifics of how this would work, I dunno, not my field.

#47 Ken

Back to the original point, naked pictures alone should NEVER be considered grounds for criminal charges. If their is an actual sex act depicted, IE penetration involving the genitals, then we can start thinking about crime.

Nicely, though graphically, stated. You made the point better than any one else so far. It’s not an expression issue so much as assault issue.

What about a picture that shows a toddler crying while being penetrated?
Tied upside down with legs spread, a dildo inserted, and hot wax being dripped on her body?

People certainly get bent out of shape waaay out of proportion thinking about someone looking at a picture of a child in an ‘impure’ manner.

They also tend to overreact when kids act in a sexual way. I think one reason that prosecutors are so gung ho in cases like that one in Georgia where the 17 year old is in prison for getting a blowjob from a 15 year old is that if they admit a 15 year old girl can willingly have sex with someone near her own age then the same girl could have willing sex with an older person.

Back to the original point, naked pictures alone should NEVER be considered grounds for criminal charges. If their is an actual sex act depicted, IE penetration involving the genitals, then we can start thinking about crime.
This still leaves gray area, but far less than before.