Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
We had this discussion several months ago.   A number of people asked what would happen if a minor did pornographic self-portraits of themself and posted them online.  A number of us, including attorneys, opined that it didn't matter that it was a self-portrait, child pornography is illegal.

I have no idea what the content of these photos is, but it is interesting in one respect.  They raided her home and took her computer. On the computer they found additonal pictures of herself, which they allege are pornographic.  It is interesting that it could be illegal to possess an explicit photo of yourself, even if you didn't disseminate it.  I wonder if there would have been a problem if she had merely taken the pictures but never posted them on the net?

In any event, the answer is "yes" if you shoot explicit pictures of yourself when you are under age and then post them on the net, you may be charged under child pornography laws.

Alan, shouldn't this be in "Off Topic" since no one here should be doing child porn?   I'm thinking this does not belong in General Topic?

Aaron S wrote:

Yes, that's exactly how I see myself. Infact, I'm going to get back to building my massive underground liar, hidden deep within the Paris Crypts. And then after that,  I am going to mastermind a plan to speed up the revolution of the earth. Thus, making all weeks only 5 days long and destroying weekends!

Glad we cleared that up, then.

Given that this is an "adult" subject, perhaps you should play outside for a while, then?

James Jackson wrote:
Monday, March 29, 2004

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
...

You know.. it did happen two years ago... I wonder if any of the MM lawyers can pull up the judgment in the case.

You talking about the one who disappeared around New Years and was found cuffed to a bed in VA?  She was like 13 or 15 or something at the time??/

Davis Images wrote:
Child porn laws gone crazy?

    Monday, March 29, 2004

    Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

    State police have charged a 15-year-old Latrobe girl with child pornography for taking photos of herself and posting them on the Internet.

    Police said the girl, whose identity they withheld, photographed herself in various states of undress and performing a variety of sexual acts. She then sent the photos to people she met in chat rooms.

    A police report did not say how police learned about the girl. They found dozens of pictures of her on her computer.

    She has been charged with sexual abuse of children, possession of child pornography and dissemination of child pornography.

Trevor Snyder wrote:
Message from government: we own you. You do not own yourself. We decide what you are allowed to do with your own body. Who was harmed here? And by whom?

Frankly, the girl is probably troubled. Does she need to be charged with child porn? Of course not. How will that possibly help her make healthy choices in life?

Yes, the child porn laws are just as messed up as drug laws here in the good ole USA! A child busted for posting "pornographic" pictures of herself on the 'net!  I agree with you that the kid needs help, but this is crazy!

lotusphoto wrote:
they have to have this law,

if nothing else it's not to difficult to imagine a scumbag taking explicit pictures of a minor and claiming they were self portraits.. the laws have to close as many loopholes as possible...

i hate to think this, but someday there will be a backlash against the scumbags that will allow the feds to define free speech, when that happens...

Yes it's a loophole most definitely. I think the main crime here is the actual distribution of the photos.

There are so many limits to what one can do to oneself. Suicide is also illegal, for example. And what of the consentual homicide in the cases of Armin Meiwes and Sharon Lopatka.

Sad thing is that she was too young to know better and probably had many problems.

Aaron S wrote:
The intersting thing about this is, while, you can still debate this in US law, in English law, "it is a general principle that the person whom a law is intended to protect cannot be prosecuted for an offence created by that law."

Wow--will look further into this.

EL PIC wrote:

Ok - then why is there a 16 yr old girl from Europe that has a few porn type poses on this site  ??

If you see photos that violate MM policy, especially those that may end up getting MM into legal trouble, please report them to the moderators.  Thank you.

Renata Brazilia wrote:

Yes it's a loophole most definitely. I think the main crime here is the actual distribution of the photos.

There are so many limits to what one can do to oneself. Suicide is also illegal, for example. And what of the consentual homicide in the cases of Armin Meiwes and Sharon Lopatka.

Sad thing is that she was too young to know better and probably had many problems.

Suicide is only illegal in the common law sense, and even then is very very rarely enforced. As there is no law on the books in the US to make it illegal.

Jessalyn wrote:
folks! I don't make the rules. I was just letting the OP know so their thread didn't get locked. someone in another thread got warned by a moderator this morning to take down a link to a pornographic image.

No good deed goes unpunished, Jessalyn.

Renata Brazilia wrote:

Wow--will look further into this.

I have only heard about it in English law though. There also is this little bit of interesting:

"Since the passage of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, UK law in general prohibits images of 16 and 17 year olds as child pornography, even though they are above the age of consent (16). However, there is an exception to the law, which provides that a person (who may be over 18) who is married to, or in an enduring family relationship with, a 16 or 17 year-old child may take or make indecent photographs showing the child with no other person than themselves with the child's consent, although it is illegal for the sexual partner to show or distribute them to any other person. "

It would seem to me though, that to arrest someone for a law designed to protect them, is both unconstitutional, immoral, and against the spirit of the law.

RoadRunner Photography wrote:

You talking about the one who disappeared around New Years and was found cuffed to a bed in VA?  She was like 13 or 15 or something at the time??/

What is it with people not reading before they post...

No I'm not talking about some girl cuffed to a bed in VA I'm talking about the original post... a 15 year old girl getting arrested for freely and of her own volition exercising her right to be self aware.

The byline is from two... almost three... years ago... I'm sure someone can find the court case and decision paper in a legal search of PA cases.  Unfortunately I do not have access to such things and was wondering if a lawyer member of MM did.

Aaron S wrote:
The intersting thing about this is, while, you can still debate this in US law, in English law, "it is a general principle that the person whom a law is intended to protect cannot be prosecuted for an offence created by that law."

That's brilliantly sensible.

The other issue of sense that often eludes lawmakers is the question of victimless crimes. While child porn involving a child obviously has a victim (the child) computer-generated virtual child porn does not. One could argue that the "victim" is the viewer, who is self-debasing, but that's really weak and amounts to a statement that individuals do not have any rights to self-determination or self-destruction.

mjr.

Aaron S wrote:

Yes, that's exactly how I see myself. Infact, I'm going to get back to building my massive underground liar, hidden deep within the Paris Crypts. And then after that,  I am going to mastermind a plan to speed up the revolution of the earth. Thus, making all weeks only 5 days long and destroying weekends!

You bastard!!  Even the French will stand up to you!!

Luminos wrote:
The odd part about this is, if convicted, she will be registered as a "sexual predator" for the rest of her life.
Sad, but it could be true.  Nothing like being labled a "sexual predator", simply by posting self images!

Firstly, this child is a child.  And children make mistakes.
Now your making sense!

Secondly, she herself was the only "victim".  She clearly didn't victimize anyone else.
Some prosecutors may not see it that way.

So in this case, the law comes out looking a bit of an ass for being a bit too gung ho.  What is needed here is a good counseling to explain why this is wrong, take away her camera, whipe the computer of the offending photos, and monitor her use of the internet.
Simple solution to a simple problem.  Plus this doesn't tie up the court system.

And modify the law to prevent overzealous prosecutors and cops from going overboard in pursuit of an "easy conviction", while letting them have the needed room to go after the sick predators out there.
I wish it was that easy.  I'm not a lawyer, and have no background in laws, but it seems to me some prosecutors like to have their staff pore over the law books to see what statutes are already on the books (all at taxpayers expense, of course), and 'load' up the charges.  (After all, something may stick).

A criminal case isn't warranted.

Because this origional article is about 2 1/2 years old, has anyone followed up to see the outcome?  Seems to me this is old news at best.

Patrick Walberg wrote:

Alan, shouldn't this be in "Off Topic" since no one here should be doing child porn?   I'm thinking this does not belong in General Topic?

Yes it does belong in GT.

Marcus J. Ranum wrote:

That's brilliantly sensible.

The other issue of sense that often eludes lawmakers is the question of victimless crimes. While child porn involving a child obviously has a victim (the child) computer-generated virtual child porn does not. One could argue that the "victim" is the viewer, who is self-debasing, but that's really weak and amounts to a statement that individuals do not have any rights to self-determination or self-destruction.

mjr.

The whole issue surrounded child pornography and its enforcement really upsets me. I am not sitting here saying child porn is great, however:

For one, when I was 15, I sure as hell knew what sex was and knew what taking a naked picture of myself would be about. And infact, that was the time when most of the girls I knew were at their randiest, puberty and all of that.

Secondly, age of consent laws. You can be over the age of consent in your state, but then this Federal Law comes and goes, "Oh, fuck you." This is part of the larger issue of the federal gov't trampling over states rights. And that is a whole different argument.

Thirdly, where does all this child porn come from? I have heard more than once that the largest child porn ring in the US is actually the US gov't. So in essence, most of this is baiting. Just like that disgusting "To catch a predator show." It's easy to sympathize. Plenty of people have fantasies, not everyone acts on them. But if you have it dangling infront of your face going, "Cmon, take me." You might very well just give in to temptation. If anything, that makes you the prey.

Christopher Hartman wrote:

You bastard!!  Even the French will stand up to you!!

They could never stop me. Not even Quailman could stop me!

Aaron S wrote:

The whole issue surrounded child pornography and its enforcement really upsets me. I am not sitting here saying child porn is great, however:

For one, when I was 15, I sure as hell knew what sex was and knew what taking a naked picture of myself would be about. And infact, that was the time when most of the girls I knew were at their randiest, puberty and all of that.

Secondly, age of consent laws. You can be over the age of consent in your state, but then this Federal Law comes and goes, "Oh, fuck you." This is part of the larger issue of the federal gov't trampling over states rights. And that is a whole different argument.

Thirdly, where does all this child porn come from? I have heard more than once that the largest child porn ring in the US is actually the US gov't. So in essence, most of this is baiting. Just like that disgusting "To catch a predator show." It's easy to sympathize. Plenty of people have fantasies, not everyone acts on them. But if you have it dangling infront of your face going, "Cmon, take me." You might very well just give in to temptation. If anything, that makes you the prey.

All good points.  I've never been a fan of entrapment.  I'm ok with the police stopping people for picking up hookers.  I'm not ok with them renting out hotel rooms and doing whatever they do to get a guy into that hotel room to then proposition a cop and get busted.  I'm not ok with the gov't going into chat rooms and suckering people into believing they are gonna meet with someone that is under 18.

Think about that 20/20 show...or whatever it was.  Those men are being punished based on their INTENT, but not what was actually possible.  WHat do I mean?  These men only believed they were meeting a young girl.  And while she did look very young, she was a 19 y.o. actress.

So...

If you meet a woman who is of legal age but claims to be underage and you have sex with her (or merely show up with the intent of being naughty) you can be busted?

What if you meet a woman is NOT of legal age but claims she is.  Are you then protected or is it assumed that we should be checking ID?

Aaron S wrote:
They could never stop me. Not even Quailman could stop me!

I will find you!!  I can't work every single day!  I just can't!! I need my weekends!!  I have saved up two weeks worth of vacation.  I will use it all to find you and I will destroy you!!

muahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahaahhahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahhahahahahahahahaahacoughhahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!!!

Christopher Hartman wrote:
All good points.  I've never been a fan of entrapment.  I'm ok with the police stopping people for picking up hookers.  I'm not ok with them renting out hotel rooms and doing whatever they do to get a guy into that hotel room to then proposition a cop and get busted.  I'm not ok with the gov't going into chat rooms and suckering people into believing they are gonna meet with someone that is under 18.

Think about that 20/20 show...or whatever it was.  Those men are being punished based on their INTENT, but not what was actually possible.  WHat do I mean?  These men only believed they were meeting a young girl.  And while she did look very young, she was a 19 y.o. actress.

So...

If you meet a woman who is of legal age but claims to be underage and you have sex with her (or merely show up with the intent of being naughty) you can be busted?

What if you meet a woman is NOT of legal age but claims she is.  Are you then protected or is it assumed that we should be checking ID?

And herein are all the problems. The last bit, I have heard of people before who will go to girls if in doubt, and ask them if they can buy them some cigarettes, because they left their ID at home. As a good way of checking.

And then, you've got things like Sally Mann and Jock Sturges. Both two photographers who I happen to love. And both who were victims of groups attempting to twist the law. You know, it's kinda funny, for 2,000 years, and more, the naked body was just considered art, of all ages. We get to the 20th century, and all of a sudden it is a shame.

Christopher Hartman wrote:
If you meet a woman who is of legal age but claims to be underage and you have sex with her (or merely show up with the intent of being naughty) you can be busted?

What if you meet a woman is NOT of legal age but claims she is.  Are you then protected or is it assumed that we should be checking ID?

It gets even crazier than that Christopher.

Look at this page: http://www.geocities.com/eadvocate/issu … ietal.html

About halfway down where it breaks in to two columns, it cites the case in the OP's quote, and a similar one from VA... but it goes on to make the point that the girls were prosecuted for simply allowing their naked bodies to be seen by other people... whereas the VA district court already ruled that a nudist camp is perfectly legal because all the teens are doing is allowing people to see their nude bodies...

We've hit the point in this country where there is no time at which you are breathing and conscious that you are not breaking a law of some type...  Heck, there's some laws you can break by being unconscious.

It is simple... if you do anything... you can be prosecuted by an overactive prosecutor seeking re-election and with a penchant for creative application of the law.

Punishing crime doesn't matter anymore... it's how sexy and juicy can you make the crime you punish so as to get the public talking about the prosecution and ensure your re-election.

Christopher Hartman wrote:

I will find you!!  I can't work every single day!  I just can't!! I need my weekends!!  I have saved up two weeks worth of vacation.  I will use it all to find you and I will destroy you!!

muahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahaahhahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahhahahahahahahahaahacoughhahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!!!

You can try...but....I'll be working every single day too!

Monica Jay wrote:
What happens to the guys that she sent the pictures to? What if she lied and said she was 18? Would they still get charged with possession of child pornography?

Legacys 7 wrote:
Wow, I think the model was just warning the o.p.. This is far from some on here who like to show their behinds instead of just giving a warning.

Regarding the topic, the girl doesn't need any therapy as one had sugggested. Kids these days know alot more and are alot more smarter than what many give them credit.

Bottomline, she was trying to run a hustle and got caught. 16 to me, while it is underage and illegal is no more different than a 21 yr old. While the 21 year old is doing the samething at a legal age, the 16 year isn't some feeble girl. Shit, 2 years from now, she'd still be doing it at a legal age. So what makes her state of mind different at 16?

What's more scary to me is the desperation that women and men are going through to make a dollar. What is taboo is now mainstream. Blame it on the adults first before you blame it on the kids. Porn is king in this country. It always have been and always will be, before and after the internet.

None of the news stories ever talked about there being any exhange of money. So, I don't know what you're talking about.

Monica Jay wrote:
What happens to the guys that she sent the pictures to? What if she lied and said she was 18? Would they still get charged with possession of child pornography?

More than likely, yes. Unless she has it stated on her website, then no. Sad, because it happens way too often. Like a lady friend of mine told me some years back, her sister looked more mature than her and she is only 12, which was hard for me to imagine because she was of age and very mature. Well, she was right about what she said. Here's the sad part. She told me how her sister was able to get into bars with older men. Many of them knew and many of them didn't know. Some guys who are told, shame on your ass. But shame on the girls underage who are out there and wild. I blame the parents.  But unless that underage girl shows you some i.d., you are s.o.l.

Legacys 7 wrote:
Regarding the topic, the girl doesn't need any therapy as one had sugggested. Kids these days know alot more and are alot more smarter than what many give them credit.

Bottomline, she was trying to run a hustle and got caught. 16 to me, while it is underage and illegal is no more different than a 21 yr old. While the 21 year old is doing the samething at a legal age, the 16 year isn't some feeble girl. Shit, 2 years from now, she'd still be doing it at a legal age. So what makes her state of mind different at 16?

This has got to be one of the most feeble minded and counter logical arguments I've ever read!

Does the fact that she's 16 make her a child, and thus vulnerable and in need of protection from the government, and incapable of knowing what her body is, and so unable to determine that it should be hidden from view

-OR-

Is she a savvy world knowledgeable adult, and thus perfectly capable of knowing herself and her own body and fully aware of how and when her body should be shown nude?

You can't have it both ways!!!!

"Kids these days know alot more and are alot more smarter than what many give them credit." -> ok... sure... then the child porn laws go right out the window, and so do the underage drinking laws, and the under age purchasing of cigarettes, and the underage purchasing of pornography.

If on the other hand you think that the child porn laws are valid, then the 16 year old is a defenseless babe in the woods, and that would be the only reason for the existence of the laws.

Come on... Get real people... use some critical thinking!

Aaron S wrote:

None of the news stories ever talked about there being any exhange of money. So, I don't know what you're talking about.

Well, I'm not talking about the newspaper. I'm giving my point of view on this. that's why you don't have a clue to what I'm talking about. There was a boy on one of those talk shows discussing how he was getting paid to show his body to older men. He needed some help for sure, but he didn't deny that he also was aware of his own actions. That's what I'm talking about.

Legacys 7 wrote:

Well, I'm not talking about the newspaper. I'm giving my point of view on this. that's why you don't have a clue to what I'm talking about. There was a boy on one of those talk shows discussing how he was getting paid to show his body to older men. He needed some help for sure, but he didn't deny that he also was aware of his own actions. That's what I'm talking about.

So that is just a random rant without explaining yourself? Oh. Keep going then.

Aaron S wrote:

So that is just a random rant without explaining yourself? Oh. Keep going then.

Yes, a random rant without any logic, meaning, or explanation... there never is around here...  I should have just stayed away... what was I thinking????

James Jackson wrote:

This has got to be one of the most feeble minded and counter logical arguments I've ever read!

Does the fact that she's 16 make her a child, and thus vulnerable and in need of protection from the government, and incapable of knowing what her body is, and so unable to determine that it should be hidden from view

-OR-

Is she a savvy world knowledgeable adult, and thus perfectly capable of knowing herself and her own body and fully aware of how and when her body should be shown nude?

You can't have it both ways!!!!

"Kids these days know alot more and are alot more smarter than what many give them credit." -> ok... sure... then the child porn laws go right out the window, and so do the underage drinking laws, and the under age purchasing of cigarettes, and the underage purchasing of pornography.

If on the other hand you think that the child porn laws are valid, then the 16 year old is a defenseless babe in the woods, and that would be the only reason for the existence of the laws.

Come on... Get real people... use some critical thinking!

It is real my man. Some people just have a hard time accepting that the girl isn't a nutcase. Call it what you want. But I tell you what, this happens alot more often than you want to accept. It's like a young man selling drugs on the streets. The only things that he gets is time in prison. If anything, the young lady needs a role model. Therapy imo, is like sending her to a shrink.


Btw, I never said that the law isn't in the right. I said that the law is in the right to do what they did. I addressed only that the girl isn't someone off her rocker. 2 years from now, she's doing the samething, now what? Now if she's 10 years old, then we agree 100%

James Jackson wrote:

Yes, a random rant without any logic, meaning, or explanation... there never is around here...  I should have just stayed away... what was I thinking????

Well, we did get a few intelligent posts in here. I honestly can't tell if he is with the law here, or against it. Or really anything about what he's saying.

Legacys 7 wrote:

It is real my man. Some people just have a hard time accepting that the girl isn't a nutcase. Call it what you want. But I tell you what, this happens alot more often than you want to accept. It's like a young man selling drugs on the streets. The only things that he gets is time in prison. If anything, the young lady needs a role model. Therapy imo, is like sending her to a shrink.


Btw, I never said that the law isn't in the right. I said that the law is in the right to do what they did. I addressed only that the girl isn't someone off her rocker. 2 years from now, she's doing the samething, now what? Now if she's 10 years old, then we agree 100%

I'm still confused...

So do we get rid of the laws, because as you say the children aren't really innocent?

Or do we enforce the laws against the children who are supposed to be protected by them?