• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Define Child Porn

DallasApple

Depends Upon My Mood..
Oh..and Im sorry..the boys should be sent home as well with their cell phones with the girls on it.Let the parents deal with them as well.They may return to school with cell phones without nude girls on it.

Love

Dallas
 

DallasApple

Depends Upon My Mood..
IOW..Boys and girls..No exchanging of nude photos of one another or possessing them on school campus. :no::) thank you very much.

Love

Dallas
 
Last edited:

Mister Emu

Emu Extraordinaire
Staff member
Premium Member
As much as I am unsure of this case, the law is the way it is for a reason...

You can make no loopholes that let actual child pornography through, or actual child pornographers get away with it...

Unfortunately, these people may have to go through the whole legal process, but I would hope a judge would not give them any time, or much worse saddle them with the title of "Sex Offender" for this... (unless some of the boys who got the photos co-erced them... then it would be)
 

Dezzie

Well-Known Member
When I had my youngest photographed at Olin Mills when he was a baby..I asked for a "naked butt" picture..You know the ones..baby lying on his tummy nude..exposing only the rear end?They told me they wouldnt shoot that pose..that it could be considered kiddie porn.

Love

Dallas


Whhhaaatt? lol Really... wow... now that is interesting... it is a baby for goodness sakes and it's YOUR child... wow... I definitely do not find that to be kiddie porn at all, but then I guess if you think about it... there are a lot of sick people out there. lol
 

Mister Emu

Emu Extraordinaire
Staff member
Premium Member
Really? Because that is the opposite of how the US law system was originally designed. People are innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.
How does "no loopholes" contradict "innocent until proven guilty"?
 

Falvlun

Earthbending Lemur
Premium Member
Ok, I agree, this whole thing is ridiculous. You should be able to take a picture of yourself, naked, and send it to whomever you want. Even if it was meant to be "pornographic".

How are you guys defining simple child nudity vs child pornography anyway? Because, frankly, I don't quite buy the whole "it's just child nudity" argument... the girls were not making an artistic statement here. What do you think they were doing?

Also, I think part of the problem in defining these girls as "children". These aren't innocent youngsters anymore. The age really should be lowered, or else, some middle stage needs to be formed, where there is still some protection, but not the full arsenal.
 

Elessar

Well-Known Member
According to the article..another student saw the pictures on the girls phone.I guess the administrators had to view them to confirm.I would say..I would prefer a female (in this case) to view what the other student claimed.(not that men are bad but even for the male admins own protection).

But the bottom line is if what was on the phone were nudes and semi nudes of the girl who owned the phone that she took herself?Then you call the parents and say "your daughter is taking nude photos of herself on her cell phone and showing people".."thats against school policy" "come pick her up with her cell phone"She is welcome back tomorrow..without a cell phone containing nude photos of herself"

Love

Dallas

Problem - anything remotely sexual, and its illegal for them to inform the parents thereof in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Back in the 70s, we had a major problem with central Pennsylvanians honor-killing their daughters when doctors, medical professionals, schools, etc. would tell the parents about things like this, or the fact that the daughters had acquired birth control or sexually transmitted diseases. Thus, would be illegal.
 

Trey of Diamonds

Well-Known Member
How does "no loopholes" contradict "innocent until proven guilty"?

You said

As much as I am unsure of this case, the law is the way it is for a reason...

You can make no loopholes that let actual child pornography through, or actual child pornographers get away with it...

I take this as meaning you don't care if innocents suffer as long as no pornographers get away with it. How else would you take the statement you made.

I prefer Blackstone's formulation.

better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer

Or do you think that its ok for ten innocents live with the label sex offender so that no pornographers go free?
 

anders

Well-Known Member
The two weirdest things in this, in my view, are

the invasion of privacy in looking into the girl's phone

charging the boys. To the best of my knowledge, there are no filters that can keep your phone from receiving certain kinds of pictures. So how could the boys even have prevented the reception? Let's say they got a picture just before having their phone examined. No time for erasure, and some law enforcement person might be able to restore it anyhow even if deleted.

So, if you're really mad at someone, borrow or steal a phone, send an incriminating picture to the person, and inform the authorities...
 

whereismynotecard

Treasure Hunter
Read the below article and tell us if this is an acurate use of the term Child Porn. I think the cops are going a bit too far in this case.


Man... That's stupid. They are charged with child pornography for having naked pictures of themselves?? It's high school... those kids are probably all having secks with each other anyway. The police need to stop perving about and meddling in the affairs of high school secks.
 

Mister Emu

Emu Extraordinaire
Staff member
Premium Member
I take this as meaning you don't care if innocents suffer
You could have asked me to elaborate as opposed to just assuming... In fact I even said, and I quote:
"I hope a judge would not give them any time, or much worse saddle them with the title of "Sex Offender""...
 

methylatedghosts

Can't brain. Has dumb.
As much as I am unsure of this case, the law is the way it is for a reason...

You can make no loopholes that let actual child pornography through, or actual child pornographers get away with it...

Unfortunately, these people may have to go through the whole legal process, but I would hope a judge would not give them any time, or much worse saddle them with the title of "Sex Offender" for this... (unless some of the boys who got the photos co-erced them... then it would be)

You want no loopholes?

Add a little more common sense to the law system...
 

Stellify

StarChild

..I don't know about other areas, but I know my area has online lists of people that have been convicted as sexual offenders. Many parents use these sites to help keep an eye out for potential predators, and indeed, have caught a few repeating their past offenses because they recognized them from the website.
In this case, the obvious problem is that if these children are convicted, they will be included on that list. These websites provide the public with the offender's name, home address, work address, offense type (rape, sexual abuse, child pornography, etc), and a picture of their face so that they may be recognized. All this information is there, free of charge, for anyone who cares to look for it. And some past offenders definitely get harassed at home when neighbors find out about their conviction(s).
Not to mention the laws that forbid certain types of sexual offenders from living within x miles of schools, etc.
If these kids aren't cleared of the charges, it will have a major impact on the rest of their lives..and for what? A stupid teenage stunt. Jobs, schools...What about future spouses finding out? So many things can be affected..
..Not only that, but I find it surprising that the boys could actually be convicted of possession of child pornography, since they're minors themselves...I would have thought the same principles would have applied as the laws concerning sexual relations between minors (minors can have sex with other minors, but if a legal adult has sex with a child, THEN it's considered illegal). At least that's how it works as far as my knowledge goes :confused:
 

Mister Emu

Emu Extraordinaire
Staff member
Premium Member
I agree...

The prosecutor should not have taken the case, and if they were dumb enough to do so, the judge should dismiss it immediately...
 

PureX

Veteran Member
I think there is a lot of confusion going on in this case.

For one thing, I don't believe that fourteen year olds are "children". So nude photos of them are not going to be "child pornography" by definition. Secondly, nude photography is not automatically pornography. Nor is pornography automatically illegal. So nude photos of fourteen year olds does not automatically equate to being illegal pornography, regardless of who took the pictures.

The solution to this confusion is simple, however. If an illegal act was committed in order to achieve the photograph, then the people who took the photo and participated in distributing it, etc. are guilty of a crime, and of covering up and abetting that crime. If the photo depicts no criminal behavior, and implies none for it to have occurred, then there is no legal reaction necessary.
 

Trey of Diamonds

Well-Known Member
Absolutely... I want no loopholes for a child pornographer to jump through and walk away free...

loopholes are the label given to the parts of the system designed to keep innocents from being convicted, even if it means that some guilty parties go free.

better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer


So if you are saying that you want no loopholes it is implied that you don't care if innocents are mistakenly sent to jail. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
 
Top