Ok...one thing I don't get about this kind of thing.

Why can a photographer like Jock Sturges take pictures of naked little girls (and sell them on Amazon.com) and everybody is cool with it, but if anybody else tries this, they get a visit from Chris Hansen.

Is the secret that the pictures have be black and white and "artsy"?

Any ideas?

Two of the three girls were photographed wearing opaque bras. No different than swimwear - possibly even less revealing. What's the problem?

Oh yeah. People are already being harassed for taking pictures of their own kids in public places doing normal kid things.

I think Elvis_Bogart might be on to something. It's not "art" ;)

Because prosecutor knows he can get famous and further his career by "think of the little childrening" and additional "OMFG pedophile porn".

He doesnt' give a fark that he's ruining innocent people's lives in the process.

Elvis_Bogart: Ok...one thing I don't get about this kind of thing.

Why can a photographer like Jock Sturges take pictures of naked little girls (and sell them on Amazon.com) and everybody is cool with it, but if anybody else tries this, they get a visit from Chris Hansen.

Is the secret that the pictures have be black and white and "artsy"?

Any ideas?

It's subjective. If it places the child into "a situation or environment meant to stimulate sexual excitement" (I'm paraphrasing here), it's pornography. The problem is that it's so subjective that it's useless. Personally, I'm a big (sexual) fan of one-piece swimsuit/bodysuit-style clothing. But I'm not attracted to pre-pubescent girls. But put one in the other, and I could probably be jailed for pornography. Hell, under the rules, I could be arrested because the local department store sent me a flier and I didn't discard it promptly.

Interestingly, as an artist (waaaay back in the day, I've since lost the time to continue), I had a book filled with photographs of men, women, and children to aid my figure drawing studies (I never did get as good as I wanted to be at mimicking the human figure). I doubt that book still exists, but in today's world of hysterical paranoia regarding pornography and children, I would be frightened to be in possession of such material, no matter how harmless the intent.

Elvis_Bogart: Ok...one thing I don't get about this kind of thing.

Why can a photographer like Jock Sturges take pictures of naked little girls (and sell them on Amazon.com) and everybody is cool with it, but if anybody else tries this, they get a visit from Chris Hansen.

Is the secret that the pictures have be black and white and "artsy"?

Any ideas?

I can't recall the full story, but essentially it comes down to one word - Lighting.

Archie Goodwin:
I can't recall the full story, but essentially it comes down to one word - Lighting.

You're right. In porn they always light up a white face, in modern art that is taboo.

/low hanging fruit

I like how the local Bozo DA determined what "community standards" are. Guys like this asshat needs to be biatch-slapped - hard - by the ACLU.

Why the heck should anyone not be allowed to take a picture of themselves?

"a Pennsylvania prosecutor who has threatened to charge the girls with felony child porn violations over digital photos they took of themselves."

That'll learn 'em. I've always said, if we want to stop child pornography we have to hit those being photographed with a felony conviction AND a lifetime of having to register as a sex offender.

DamnYankees:Why the heck should anyone not be allowed to take a picture of themselves?

From a different article the DA said"Frankly, we just wanted to protect these kids, and say, 'Doing this is not right.'

He's doing it for the children.

Essentially, this is outlawing teen sexuality. Teens have been finding methods to push the boundaries of sexual mores since the first crude boobies was drawn on a cave wall in yak's blood. The idea of prosecuting anyone who photograph's their selves in the buff is idiotic, prosecuting teen age boys with naughty photos of teen age girls in stupid and registering either of them as sex offenders is ludicrous. If one can produce a magazine advertisement or television commercial with far more prurient intent but no skin legally, then prosecuting these kids is hypocrisy.

If, however, you're a 40 year old and have a hard drive full of this...sorry dude, you gots to have a seat right over there.

The new head of ACLU:

FTFA:

Skumanick then threatened to charge the girls with producing child porn unless their parents agreed to the probation, and sent the teenagers to a five-week, 10-hour education program to discuss why what they did was wrong and what it means to be a girl in today's society. The girls would also have to subject themselves to drug testing -- a standard probation term in the county.

This guy has a lot of nerve. What a jack ass. I hope the case is thrown out and so is he.

I don't get it.

Old and Busted: "Douchebag District Attorneys and Police! Charging teens who put nude pics of themselves with child porn and putting them on the Sex Offenders List for Life! That's sick!"

New Hotness: "Douchebag ACLU! Letting teens who put nude pics of themselves get off scotfree for the enjoyment of the pedos! That's sick!"

/pick a side, peoples

Okay, I'll concede that 13 year olds taking nudie pics of themselves is a bad thing. But for fark's sake, prosecuting them for child porn isn't the answer. How about we educate their parents on how to educate their kids to not do that stuff.

ExJerseyGirl: FTFA:

Skumanick then threatened to charge the girls with producing child porn unless their parents agreed to the probation, and sent the teenagers to a five-week, 10-hour education program to discuss why what they did was wrong and what it means to be a girl in today's society. The girls would also have to subject themselves to drug testing -- a standard probation term in the county.

This guy has a lot of nerve. What a jack ass. I hope the case is thrown out and so is he.

I'm kinda curious about the government-funded education program teaching "what it means to be a girl in today's society". I bet there's some fodder for equal protection arguments there.

Epsilon: Okay, I'll concede that 13 year olds taking nudie pics of themselves is a bad thing. But for fark's sake, prosecuting them for child porn isn't the answer. How about we educate their parents on how to educate their kids to not do that stuff.

They weren't nude.

ExJerseyGirl: They weren't nude.

According to TFA one was topless, but I wasn't referring just to the three kids the article is about. I was talking about the proliferation of recent cases of kids being prosecuted for having nude pics, often of themselves.

Epsilon:

According to TFA one was topless, but I wasn't referring just to the three kids the article is about. I was talking about the proliferation of recent cases of kids being prosecuted for having nude pics, often of themselves.

That I can't really comment on. It depends on the case. If a 16 year old is selling pictures of nude 12 year olds, perhaps they should be prosecuted. If a 13 year old takes a nude picture of herself, perhaps not.

Epsilon: How about we educate their parents on how to educate their kids to not do that stuff.

Because if they do that, the county prosecutor will not be able to run for office in 10 years saying he has a carreer of being tough on crime.

ExJerseyGirl: If a 16 year old is selling pictures of nude 12 year olds, perhaps they should be prosecuted.

Should we really be stifling the free market... in this economy?

Flab:

Because if they do that, the county prosecutor will not be able to run for office in 10 years saying he has a carreer of being tough on crime.

FTFA:

Skumanick, who is running for re-election in May

Flab: to run for office in 10 years

ExJerseyGirl: for re-election in May

*cough*

I was counting in dog years.

Oh crap... that doesn't work either...

The simple, and I think correct, solution is to outlaw cameras. I mean seriously - who really needs one besides pedophiles and terrorists?

What we need is for the government to immediately seize all cameras before some hotshot senator amends the constitution.

Oh good, someone has finally realized that putting people on child offender lists for life because of a picture they took in their teens is a bad idea. How much does anyone want to bet though that this will only remove the penalties for girls and boys will still be completely screwed if they see a naked pic of a classmate?

GAT_00: How much does anyone want to bet though that this will only remove the penalties for girls and boys will still be completely screwed if they see a naked pic of a classmate?

Taking a naked picture of yourself may be somewhat distinct from sharing naked pictures of someone else.

Theaetetus: GAT_00: How much does anyone want to bet though that this will only remove the penalties for girls and boys will still be completely screwed if they see a naked pic of a classmate?

Taking a naked picture of yourself may be somewhat distinct from sharing naked pictures of someone else.

Exactly.

Also, if a picture of a 16 year old is being passed among 16 year olds, so what? It's ok for them to fark but they can't actually LOOK at each other naked? Idiotic. The age of consent in MI is 16, so why would seeing a 16 year old naked be illegal? It doesn't track at all.

This thread is useless without pics.

adamgreeney: It's ok for them to fark but they can't actually LOOK at each other naked?

"I'll go poke Webb's eyes out."

/obscure?

ACLU sues Pennsylvania prosecutor to defend the rights of women who wish to take nude photos of themselves. And by women they mean girls who are 13 years old and who are being prosecuted for child pornography.

FTFsmitty

Should they really be charged with felonies for doing it? It seems like the parents should be notified and some counseling might be in order but a felony? a farking felony? seriously?

Theaetetus: adamgreeney: It's ok for them to fark but they can't actually LOOK at each other naked?

"I'll go poke Webb's eyes out."

/obscure?

Obscure? On Fark? Never.

/stupid thread not allowing pictures. . . I had a perfect Crow picture too.

As usual, someone biatches about the ACLU doing something that I think is completely appropriate.

The idea that, as a minor, you can get in legal trouble for taking pictures of yourself or consensual pictures of friends is absolutely farking ridiculous.

Of course, our child porn laws are all ready ridiculous. If congress had their way the following would all be legally as bad as having pictures of a girl being raped by her father:

1. Simulated child porn. An image of an adult actress modified to look younger. No children involved. You could probably get prosecuted for having porn starts in school girl outfits the ridiculous way most prosecutors use porn laws.

2. Illustrated images of underaged characters engaged in sex. That's your rule 34 (well, some of it), your hentai, etc. How can you prove a drawn character is underage and not just petite? I have no farking clue. This is the most ridiculous porn law I've ever heard of (And Canada enforces this shiat). The best response I've seen is to draw a stick figure, put boobs and a vagina on it, write "Lucy, age 5" and then you have child pornography.

3. I believe if you can't show proof that the "models" in your porn are adults, it can be counted as child pornography. Not sure about this one. I know of one porn star who has a particularly young look (I know when I first saw her I thought she must be underage, but she didn't get into porn until she was 20) whose website has a page dedicated to showing she is over 18.

Now, luckily the Supreme Court usually strikes down the first two at least every time, but congress keeps passing these idiotic laws.

Frankly I think our whole sex crimes system is farked up. Making permanent social outcasts out of people who do anything at all (even if it isn't actually sexual but just involves nudity) is not the way to go.

Is it just me, or does anyone else long for the days of Magistrates and what not?

A simple set of laws that outline basic behavior, and whenever there was a problem, no matter if there was a law about it or not, you took it before the magistrate/arbitrator. His duty was to settle the dispute justly. he would look at the situations, determined who had been wronged, and establish recompense if needed.

He looked at the situation as it was, rather than through the lens of law. It is called "the rule of men" as opposed to "the rule of law" in its system, as it does not seek to codify every behavior as allowed or disallowed, but waits for a grievance to be had. Obviously this is an ideal, but... we vote judges, senators, and mayors into office, so elections of such a person would not be too hard.

I know, its a pipe dream, but it removes these issues of absolute laws with no real ability to flex. (Unless you are wealthy, then... it flexes all over the place) As stated in a previous example, this would stop the 17 year old from selling pictures of 12 year olds online, while at the same time not punishing the 12 year old boy who snapped a naked photo as he rand screaming through the girls locker room. Or, if he was punished, it would be with something far more appropriate, such as scrubbing said locker room floor until it was spotless.

I don't know if its the best solution, but it sure sounds nice.

Tigger: Because prosecutor knows he can get famous and further his career by "think of the little childrening" and additional "OMFG pedophile porn".

He doesnt' give a fark that he's ruining innocent people's lives in the process.


"felony child porn violations" = 3 more felony convictions on the resume regardless of actual justice served.

I think the important legal and moral question here is: Are the girls hot?

vernonFL: I think the important legal and moral question here is: Are the girls hot?

They're 13. 'Nuff said.

Too old.

The Tunkhannock case involves two photos depicting the three girls. One photo of Marissa Miller and Grace Kelly shows them two years ago at age 13 lying side by side while one talks on the phone and the other makes a peace sign with her fingers, according to the ACLU complaint. The two are photographed from the waist up and are wearing white opaque bras. A second photo shows a girl referred to in the court document as "Jane Doe" photographed outside a shower with a towel wrapped around her waist. Her breasts are bared.

None of this even meets the legal definition of pornography.

chipspastic: vernonFL: I think the important legal and moral question here is: Are the girls hot?

They're 13. 'Nuff said.

He asked if they were hot, not how old they were.

adamgreeney: chipspastic: vernonFL: I think the important legal and moral question here is: Are the girls hot?

They're 13. 'Nuff said.

He asked if they were hot, not how old they were.

Yeah....12 would be gross and wrong, but these girls were 13.

HotWingConspiracy: None of this even meets the legal definition of pornography.

Not so... It is conceivable that the pictures may arouse the prurient interest.

RemyDuron:

Frankly I think our whole sex crimes system is farked up. Making permanent social outcasts out of people who do anything at all (even if it isn't actually sexual but just involves nudity) is not the way to go.

But we have to PROTECT THE CHILDREN FROM THE EVIL OF SEX.

I can understand wanting to stop abuse. Adults molesting little kids is a crime, no if's, and's, or but's about it. However, this no-tolerance bullshiat and strict enforcement of poorly worded laws is just ludicrous. I think we would be better served if kids got a frank and science based education on sex. Might be less confusion that way, and give them the tools to operate in relationships with a little bit of foresight.

But that won't happen until the last Christian dies.

Theaetetus: HotWingConspiracy: None of this even meets the legal definition of pornography.

Not so... It is conceivable that the pictures may arouse the prurient interest.

So could the Jr. Miss section of the Sears ad in the paper. It's not pornography.

gustakooka: adamgreeney: chipspastic: vernonFL: I think the important legal and moral question here is: Are the girls hot?

They're 13. 'Nuff said.

He asked if they were hot, not how old they were.

Yeah....12 would be gross and wrong, but these girls were 13.

Hey, have you seen how these girls dress today? I mean come on! They all look at least 18.

adamgreeney: chipspastic: vernonFL: I think the important legal and moral question here is: Are the girls hot?

They're 13. 'Nuff said.

He asked if they were hot, not how old they were.

I stand by my "13 implies hot" stereotype.

RemyDuron: I believe if you can't show proof that the "models" in your porn are adults, it can be counted as child pornography. Not sure about this one.

The U.S. government hardened the laws regarding this a few years ago. For adult content producers, if you can't prove the age of every single person appearing in your material, it doesn't necessarily qualify as child porn, but it is a lack of required record keeping, which also comes with some pretty harsh penalties. A hefty fine at the least, but also possible jail time and they can shut down your business.

Of course, the law was passed under the guise of "protecting the children," but most people speculate it was part of the Bush administration's (and particularly former Attorney General John Ashcroft's) attempt to stomp out a large number porn producers and distributors. Because they made the law retroactive, even covering porn material which obviously contained only adults, but was produced before record keeping requirements existed, and they extended the requirement even to small time porn site operators who buy their content from other distributors, it would be a near impossible task for many small-time operators to meet the requirement, effectively putting them out of business.

Just another reason to love the ACLU. YEAH I SAID LOVE.

chipspastic: adamgreeney: chipspastic: vernonFL: I think the important legal and moral question here is: Are the girls hot?

They're 13. 'Nuff said.

He asked if they were hot, not how old they were.

I stand by my "13 implies hot" stereotype.

That's what you meant? Then we're in agreement.

adamgreeney: gustakooka: adamgreeney: chipspastic: vernonFL: I think the important legal and moral question here is: Are the girls hot?

They're 13. 'Nuff said.

He asked if they were hot, not how old they were.

Yeah....12 would be gross and wrong, but these girls were 13.

Hey, have you seen how these girls dress today? I mean come on! They all look at least 18.

I wasn't being sarcastic.