Boys will be boys! (cell phone porn trading)

[Marc]

CNN video (http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/tech/2008/04/24/delacruz.cell.phone.porn.cnn)

Basically, a 15 year old boy was charged with a third degree felony for swapping nude pictures on his cell phone. The kids involved could get consequences including mandatory counseling, jail time, or even being forced to register as sex offenders since this is considered a form of child pornography, even though all those involved are minors.

This happened in Utah where the age of consent is older than many other states. In Pennsylvania, the age of consent is just 13 (under certain restrictions), so if these pictures were only traded by minors within the consent age ranges, then I wouldn't imagine that it should be deemed as child pornography since it could be considered an extension of an otherwise legal sexual activity.

[grondramb]

It certainly doesn't work that way in Georgia where 18 is an absolute limit on porn. When the sodomy law was overturned there were briefly some Tee Shirts that said:

Georgia, were you can **** your 14 year old cousin in the ass but you'd better not take her picture.

[busyba]

I feel safer already. :rolleyes:

[Adam1115]

I'm missing something here.

How is taking a nude picture pornography?

Nude != pornography. There must be something missing from this story.

[Marc]

It's because a nude picture of a fifteen year old boy is child pornography under most current considerations.

[Adam1115]

It's because a nude picture of a fifteen year old boy is child pornography under most current considerations.

? How do you figure that?

[Marc]

It's because a nude picture of a fifteen year old boy is child pornography under most current considerations.

? How do you figure that?
My thought is that child pornography was defined as pictures (or written erotica) depicting minors in a sexual context (very broadly defined). If you were to have a picture of a naked fifteen year old boy in your possession, I'd expect that you could find yourself in serious trouble.

Remember, in our society, even a simple nude picture of a child is viewed as child pornography, despite whatever context there may be.

[Adam1115]

My thought is that child pornography was defined as pictures (or written erotica) depicting minors in a sexual context (very broadly defined). If you were to have a picture of a naked fifteen year old boy in your possession, I'd expect that you could find yourself in serious trouble.

Exactly, depends on the context. If the 15 year old took a picture of himself as a joke and sent it to his friends, it's going to be tough to make the leap that it's 'porn'.

Now, if they are sexually suggestive, that's a different matter.

Remember, in our society, even a simple nude picture of a child is viewed as child pornography, despite whatever context there may be.

I don't think that's the case. Every parent I have ever met has bathtub pictures of their kids. I guess they're all guilty of child pornography by this definition?

[Marc]

I don't think that's the case. Every parent I have ever met has bathtub pictures of their kids. I guess they're all guilty of child pornography by this definition?
You're talking to a person who was pulled aside by two police officers when we were picking up pictures after being developed at a one-hour photo place. We had a picture of our 7 year old son topless along with several other random family and home photos. The officers questioned my husband and me and also questioned our son (while being separated from us) to find out whether there were any illicit activities going on.

We were scared and humiliated by the experience.

People have had the police called to Wal-Mart photo labs for similar experiences. It's not unheard of, I'm sorry to say.

[Adam1115]

I don't think that's the case. Every parent I have ever met has bathtub pictures of their kids. I guess they're all guilty of child pornography by this definition?
You're talking to a person who was pulled aside by two police officers when we were picking up pictures after being developed at a one-hour photo place. We had a picture of our 7 year old son topless along with several other random family and home photos. The officers questioned my husband and me and also questioned our son (while being separated from us) to find out whether there were any illicit activities going on.

We were scared and humiliated by the experience.

People have had the police called to Wal-Mart photo labs for similar experiences. It's not unheard of, I'm sorry to say.

I'm sorry to hear that. I guess I get your point, more on people's attitude vs. the law.

But the police were wrong. They wouldn't have had a leg to stand on if they tried to prosecute.

[d-dub]

I don't think that's the case. Every parent I have ever met has bathtub pictures of their kids. I guess they're all guilty of child pornography by this definition?
You're talking to a person who was pulled aside by two police officers when we were picking up pictures after being developed at a one-hour photo place. We had a picture of our 7 year old son topless along with several other random family and home photos. The officers questioned my husband and me and also questioned our son (while being separated from us) to find out whether there were any illicit activities going on.

We were scared and humiliated by the experience.

People have had the police called to Wal-Mart photo labs for similar experiences. It's not unheard of, I'm sorry to say.

I'm sorry to hear that. I guess I get your point, more on people's attitude vs. the law.

But the police were wrong. They wouldn't have had a leg to stand on if they tried to prosecute.

That doesn't mean that your life, family and finances won't be irrevocably damaged in the process.

[betamax]

What the heck is wrong with topless boys? Did they somehow think he was a girl?

We've seen it here how you are guilty until proven innocent.