Skip

"Mere production of these videos or pictures may also result in psychological trauma to the teenagers involved."
February 12, 2007 1:24 PM   Subscribe


 
Those two will probably end up on wonderful sex offender registries too, and there are plenty of people who would argue that even defending people placed on SO lists is horrible.
posted by delmoi at 1:32 PM on February 12, 2007 [1 favorite]


Lovely. I can't wait for the first time we arrest a girl and her Hitachi Magic Wand for Criminal Sexual Conduct With A Minor.
posted by vorfeed at 1:32 PM on February 12, 2007 [1 favorite]


Y'know, my parents took lots of baby photos that they like to trot out to embarrass me in front of girlfriends... some of them are me in the tub. Do I need to sic the local PD on them, too? Similarly, how do we feel about diaper ads?
posted by Mayor West at 1:34 PM on February 12, 2007


They're children. It's port. ZOMG child-porn?!?!!!111!

Anyone who has those pics of themselves as babies naked on the bearskin rug has some splainin to do.
posted by supercrayon at 1:37 PM on February 12, 2007


They're children. It's porn. ZOMG child-porn?!?!!!111!

Anyone who has those pics of themselves as babies naked on the bearskin rug has some splainin to do.
posted by supercrayon at 1:37 PM on February 12, 2007


(dur, I should never try to be clever, it only leads to pain and double posts with spelling errors. *quiet sobbing*)
posted by supercrayon at 1:38 PM on February 12, 2007 [1 favorite]


Here's a hypothetical: since child pornography laws are ostensibly founded on the idea that somebody underage cannot give their consent to posing nude, what happens when somebody underage takes pictures of themselves, holds onto it until they are of age, and then disseminates the pictures? I mean, I know what would probably happen in reality, but how would prosecuting this be justified? Morally can a person consent to disseminate pictures of themselves when they were younger?
posted by SBMike at 1:42 PM on February 12, 2007


Why am I not surprised it happened in Florida.
posted by chunking express at 1:44 PM on February 12, 2007 [1 favorite]


You know what else results in psychological trauma? CONVICTIONS FOR CHILD PORNOGRAPHY, you stupid fucks.

The judge is not seeing the forest for the trees here. And it's a small forest, and these trees are fucking huge.
posted by Sticherbeast at 1:54 PM on February 12, 2007 [1 favorite]


SBMike, I assume it's the same as someone creating digital or photoshopped child porn. No child was actually abused, but possession or distribution of the images would be prosecuted. The most likely explantion given would be that it's promoting child pornography and encouraging others.
posted by Crash at 1:54 PM on February 12, 2007


My wife and I have a server in our house, on which we dump all photos we take of our children (and ourselves) regardless of the content of those photos. Those photos are not available to the outside world.

However, we also publish our "best of" photos to a website that we make available for select friends and relatives. It's password-protected, but I had to convince my wife not to post bathtub photos, or anything else that might be construed as child pornography by the broadest possible definition.

It is exactly this sort of thing that I was thinking of. I can (and could, in the beginning) easily conceive of a friend of the family giving the password to someone else "to see these cute pictures", and having that person judge something to be pornography and call the police.

What a world we live in.
posted by davejay at 1:57 PM on February 12, 2007


They're just thinking of the children...
posted by sfts2 at 1:57 PM on February 12, 2007


Here's a quote from a judge:
Appellant was simply too young to make an intelligent decision about engaging in sexual conduct and memorializing it. Mere production of these videos or pictures may also result in psychological trauma to the teenagers involved.

Further, if these pictures are ultimately released, future damage may be done to these minors' careers or personal lives.
And having a record (even sealed) wouldn't? Suppose there is some legal change and these types of records are unsealed and put on sex offender registries. Obviously there may be negative consequences if pictures are released later on, but almost certainly those consequences are less then being convicted for having child porn!

Also in Florida, it's legal for people under 24 to sleep with people over 16, so you can have sex with someone, but go to jail for taking pictures of them naked...?
posted by delmoi at 1:58 PM on February 12, 2007


The judge is not seeing the forest for the trees here. And it's a small forest, and these trees are fucking huge.

I think you're getting that metaphor backwards.
posted by delmoi at 2:00 PM on February 12, 2007


Sticherbeast writes "You know what else results in psychological trauma? CONVICTIONS FOR CHILD PORNOGRAPHY, you stupid fucks. "

Exactly. I had to force myself not to say as much in the FPP.
posted by brundlefly at 2:02 PM on February 12, 2007


So does...I mean...What about...

DOES NOT COMPUTE.
posted by Cyclopsis Raptor at 2:03 PM on February 12, 2007


I think you're getting that metaphor backwards.

I don't know what you're talking about. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to put shoes on my head, hats on my feet, and get eaten by a hamburger.
posted by Sticherbeast at 2:05 PM on February 12, 2007


"...under Florida law, Amber and Jeremy would be legally permitted to engage in carnal relations, but they're criminals if they document it."
posted by ericb at 2:06 PM on February 12, 2007


Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to put shoes on my head, hats on my feet, and get eaten by a hamburger.

Apparently, Sticherbeast is from the nation of Rand-McNally. Hm.
posted by grubi at 2:12 PM on February 12, 2007 [1 favorite]


Where's the "*headassplodes*" tag?
posted by gottabefunky at 2:17 PM on February 12, 2007


Wolf speculated that Amber and Jeremy could have ended up selling the photos to child pornographers ("one motive for revealing the photos is profit") or showing the images to their friends.

And I suppose I could bash someone over the head with the bat I keep in my closet. Better lock me up now just in case.
posted by itchylick at 2:18 PM on February 12, 2007 [3 favorites]


Can we all just stop having kids now, so we don't have to "protect" them from imaginary bogeymen?
posted by maxwelton at 2:24 PM on February 12, 2007 [1 favorite]


So...I molested myself as a child then?
posted by Smedleyman at 2:26 PM on February 12, 2007 [2 favorites]


This is fucking ridiculous.
posted by Snyder at 2:39 PM on February 12, 2007


This, meaning, this conviction and upholding of such.
posted by Snyder at 2:40 PM on February 12, 2007


"Wolf speculated that Amber and Jeremy could have ended up selling the photos to child pornographers ("one motive for revealing the photos is profit") or showing the images to their friends."

Doesn't presuming someone might do something violate the Innocent until Guilty thing? Reminds me of that Nazi law that imprisoned people on the basis that they were potential criminals
posted by A189Nut at 2:40 PM on February 12, 2007


It's no less outrageous that (presumably) some family member(s), most likely parents, turned these photos in to the police. WTF?
posted by treepour at 2:47 PM on February 12, 2007


I assume it's the same as someone creating digital or photoshopped child porn. No child was actually abused, but possession or distribution of the images would be prosecuted.

You'd be wrong, in the U.S. at the moment anyway.
posted by Tenuki at 3:00 PM on February 12, 2007


You know, I have a photo of my twenty-first digit taken at the age of 15. I took it because it went through a growth spurt in the previous few years and I thought it would be a good idea to document the change at that point (being in HS photography and having access to a darkroom helped). In any case, the growth spurt had pretty much stopped by that point but it is nice to be able to look back and say that at fifteen I was at this point.

I've even shared the photo with friends. I'm now going to go home and destroy it because that is the world we live in, and it sucks.
posted by DragonBoy at 3:01 PM on February 12, 2007


It being the photo.

Just making things clear.

posted by DragonBoy at 3:02 PM on February 12, 2007 [2 favorites]


DragonBoy writes "It being the photo."

Whew!
posted by brundlefly at 3:18 PM on February 12, 2007 [4 favorites]


this is part of why i think we need to distinguish between prepubescent children and sexually mature teenagers in terms of porn and other sex laws.

virtually all men if they are honest are attracted to teenage girls who have developed sexually-- very few are attracted to actual children. of course, most men wouldn't act on this attraction-- but those with impulse control disorders might.

either way, those who are attracted to sexually mature (if not emotionally etc.) females are likely to be far more corrigible than those whose sexual orientation tends exclusively towards prepubescent children.

child porn should be defined as that involving prepubescent or apparently prepubescent children. it should be illegal for underage sexually mature people to appear in porn-- but if they make it themselves and do not distribute it as in this case, it should be legal.

sex crime law should use the pre/post pubescent scale to determine the severity of the punishment and the age of the offender should play a part as well. if we could avoid putting teens who have sex with each other on sex crimes registries and could focus these on people who target prepubescent children, we'd have a lot better case for strict sex offender laws and registries etc.

also, we really really need data in this area-- no one knows much about the development of pedophilia, if anything works to treat it, how common recidivism actually is, the relationship with antisocial personality (some people with this disorder will fuck anything that is convenient-- sometimes it's kids, but that isn't necessarily what they desire), the effects of media, etc.

this is because we're too squeamish to fund the research and possession of child porn isn't even allowed by researchers or treatment providers who want to use it for things like aversion therapy.

more data would help devise better ways of dealing with it both in criminal justice and prevention, i think.
posted by Maias at 3:28 PM on February 12, 2007 [1 favorite]


virtually all men if they are honest are attracted to teenage girls who have developed sexually

Me and legions of other gay men would say you're virtually wrong.
posted by ericb at 3:31 PM on February 12, 2007 [2 favorites]


This is a silly court decision. All the same, I'd like to know what fucknut called the cops on these kids.
posted by koeselitz at 3:50 PM on February 12, 2007


ericb: ah, but you love some sexy young twinks, don't you?! LOCK HIM UP!
posted by papakwanz at 3:59 PM on February 12, 2007


This is fucking stupid.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 4:13 PM on February 12, 2007


I'm relieved that Amber has been justly punished for her act of self abuse. I just hope the court has imposed a restraining order on her, requiring her to be at least 100' from herself at all times.
posted by Phlogiston at 4:23 PM on February 12, 2007 [7 favorites]




And I suppose I could bash someone over the head with the bat I keep in my closet. Better lock me up now just in case.
posted by itchylick


I think that is the principle we are using to destroy Iraq and are going to use when we destroy Iran.
posted by notreally at 4:35 PM on February 12, 2007


Mere production of these videos or pictures may also result in psychological trauma to the teenagers involved.

How?
posted by ook at 5:01 PM on February 12, 2007


Didn't you get the memo, ook? Sex is eeeeevil.
posted by brundlefly at 5:22 PM on February 12, 2007


oops, meant to say hetero men...
posted by Maias at 5:49 PM on February 12, 2007


And here I thought the police only trolled MySpace for school bombing threats and so on... Huh!
posted by taursir at 5:59 PM on February 12, 2007


Well. That'll learn 'em.
posted by gc at 6:27 PM on February 12, 2007


A 16-year-old boy is up for child porn charges here. He's just turned 16 last week, and there's a good chance the porn images are of people from his school, but it hasn't come to court yet. Fucking courts.

Also, there is a point about the difference between paedophilia and post-pubescent-philia, but it's such a politiically untouchable one that we're set to hound 20-year-olds for finding 17-year-olds attractive.
posted by bonaldi at 7:25 PM on February 12, 2007


Stupid fucking judges. Foolish, willful fucking idiocy. They should have THEIR lives fucked with....grumble.
posted by UseyurBrain at 8:17 PM on February 12, 2007


Judge James Wolf, a former prosecutor, wrote the majority opinion.

Christ, what an asshole.
posted by tzikeh at 10:20 PM on February 12, 2007


Some day, all these youths being called 'children' are going to wake up and get pissed off. Then there will be hell to pay. Seriously, that was part of what happened in the uheavel of the 60's.

Even the dissenting opinion, much as I apprecaited what the judge said, the constant 'child this and child that' annoyed the hell out of me. She's old enough to have a baby, how can she be called a 'child'?

I'm so happy to see the court protecting the future interest of these 'children' by giving them a rap for child porn.

Paging Brook Shields...
posted by Goofyy at 10:38 PM on February 12, 2007


According to the majority, we should not use the internet for commerce either.

"It could be hacked"
posted by pwedza at 11:45 PM on February 12, 2007


"Wolf speculated that Amber and Jeremy could have ended up selling the photos to child pornographers ("one motive for revealing the photos is profit") or showing the images to their friends."

Prosecuting pre crime. How novel.

Why am I not surprised it happened in Florida.
posted by chunking express


Seconded.

This is the result of having right wing nuts appointing unqualified but fundamentalist approved judges to the bench.
Thanks Jeb.

Here's another nut from the Family Foundation arguing against the HPV vaccine for youths in Kentucky. Give him some MeFi lovin' too!

Proof your vote counts (and keeps counting.)
posted by nofundy at 5:46 AM on February 13, 2007


I still think people are missing the boat by thinking that prosecutors and judges view this as an unfortunate "mistake." This is exactly how right-wing moralists envision using child pornography laws to criminalize unmarried teenage sex. The application of the law to consensual teenage sex is not unfortunate collateral damage, but a bonus in the eyes of the Christian Right and other moralizers.
posted by jonp72 at 7:08 AM on February 13, 2007 [2 favorites]


Why can't I have one week without being made "proud" by my home state? At least this was the kooks up in the north end rather than my kooks down at the south end...
posted by phearlez at 11:38 AM on February 13, 2007


No More Porn for You
posted by homunculus at 7:00 PM on February 14, 2007


And then there's the case of the father who brought his film in to be developed, and the end result was having his kids taken away from him. It seems there were "baby in the bath" pictures, and the photo lab employee called the police. Salon.com article about this case here.
posted by etoile at 9:27 AM on February 15, 2007


« Older good things are brewing   |   Two lip-sticked seal-panda... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post