Florida Teens Criminals for Taking Private Photos of Selves - "Child Porn"

[JackRiddler]

Leaves me speechless.

http://news.com.com/2102-1030_3-6157857.html?tag=st.util.print

Police blotter: Teens prosecuted for racy photos

By Declan McCullagh
Story last modified Fri Feb 09 08:35:46 PST 2007

(...)

What: Teenagers taking risque photos of themselves are prosecuted for violating child pornography laws.

When: Florida state appeals court rules on January 19.

Outcome: A 2-1 majority upholds conviction on grounds the girl produced a photograph featuring the sexual conduct of a child.

(...)

On March 25, 2004, Amber and Jeremy took digital photos of themselves naked and engaged in unspecified "sexual behavior." The two sent the photos from a computer at Amber's house to Jeremy's personal e-mail address. Neither teen showed the photographs to anyone else. Court records don't say exactly what happened next--perhaps the parents wanted to end the relationship and raised the alarm--but somehow Florida police learned about the photos. Amber and Jeremy were arrested. Each was charged with producing, directing or promoting a photograph featuring the sexual conduct of a child. Based on the contents of his e-mail account, Jeremy was charged with an extra count of possession of child pornography.

(...)

In other words, under Florida law, Amber and Jeremy would be legally permitted to engage in carnal relations, but they're criminals if they document it. Amber's attorney claimed that the right to privacy protected by the Florida Constitution shielded the teen from prosecution, an argument that a trial judge rejected. Amber pleaded no contest to the charges and was placed on probation, though she reserved her right to appeal her constitutional claim.

By a 2-1 vote, the appeals court didn't buy it. Judge James Wolf, a former prosecutor, wrote the majority opinion.

(...)

Excerpt from Wolf's majority opinion:
As previously stated, the reasonable expectation that the material will ultimately be disseminated is by itself a compelling state interest for preventing the production of this material. In addition, the statute was intended to protect minors like appellant and her co-defendant from their own lack of judgment... 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. These children are not mature enough to make rational decisions concerning all the possible negative implications of producing these videos.

(NOTE: Are there implications more negative than being hauled up in front of these pervert judges? - We had to destroy these kids in order to save them.)

(...)

Excerpt from Padovano's dissent:
If a minor cannot be criminally prosecuted for having sex with another minor, as the court held in B.B., it follows that a minor cannot be criminally prosecuted for taking a picture of herself having sex with another minor. Although I do not condone the child's conduct in this case, I cannot deny that it is private conduct. Because there is no evidence that the child intended to show the photographs to third parties, they are as private as the act they depict...

(...)

[ck4829]

1. It's Flordiduh, what do you expect?

[boobooday]

2. Are they allowed to look at themselves in the mirror?

Aren't there more important things for the legal system to concern itself with?:banghead:

[zbdent]

10. What cracks me up about the "viewing of a breast" ...

Until a boy is a teen, he really has no desire to look at a naked woman (girls are "icky!") ... and a girl can be surrounded by naked women at any point in her life, and nobody would bat an eye ...

[boobooday]

13. Nothing more obscene than the human body!

:shrug:

[donsu]

19. nobody is saying that

nt

[boobooday]

20. That is the overall attitude

Hence the whole country went berserk over a NIPPLE last year . . .

And John Ashcroft covers the naked breast of a statue.

You have to admit, the idea that children will be traumatized by any glimpse of a naked human body is pervasive.

[JackRiddler]

24. No

Naked is bad, mirror by doubling the offensive image is double-bad. They might be seen. The light rays of their reflections will exist forever (in the same way that radio waves sent out 30 years ago are still out there in space) and might be intercepted by a future technology that does not yet exist but is conceivable.

[rodeodance]

3. "sexual experimentation" up against the Digital age.

[donsu]

4. the internet is not private

nt

[JackRiddler]

7. the web is public -- e-mail is private

Though I am aware there are those who argue that e-mail is theirs to monitor (employers).

A server can look at your e-mail, just as the post office can open your mail. Only the latter is clearly illegal, although both should be.

The dissenting judge deals with this question if you follow the link.

[TahitiNut]

5. Romeo and Juliet ... Elizabethan child porn

Who the hell gave those kids sex organs before they were licensed to use them?? :grr:

[Danieljay]

6. the boy was charged with an additional count of possessing child porn, he'll be on the predators

list the rest of his life. This is messed up, on many many levels.

[JackRiddler]

8. And this is no isolated incident

Before the recent discovery of terrorism, child porn was the thin edge of the wedge to justify any police state measure. And it remains so. It's a red flag to a bull: you don't need to say anything other than the words, and otherwise civilized people gang up into a lynch mob, the facts of a case are irrelevant.

[Cruzan]

21. Terrorism, Child Pornography, and Intellectual Property Piracy

are the three fears used to justify gutting the Bill of Rights.

[HockeyMom]

9. Baby pictures

I once had a Fundie tell me that taking a picture of washing your naked baby in a tub, or a picture of their bare bottom, was child porn.

Must be MILLIONS of child pornographers out there by their wacko standards.

[donsu]

11. what country was it that recently arrested a huge child sex ring?

these kids sharing sex pictures of themselves are leaving themselves open to criminals.

private sexual pictures have a way of not staying private. what if these kids had a falling out and one wanted revenge. or they were offered money for the pics., etc.

adults need to talk to them.

[JackRiddler]

15. Why don't you give us the reports about this...

honestly, I missed it.

So you're seeing a justification here?

[donsu]

18. don't have the link - I'm sure search program could find it - it was recent

I'm just saying it's risky business to put sexual pictures of yourself on the internet, even in emails. or the p.c.s that have the camera where you can see each other - much sexual stuff goes on there and it's supposed to be private.

and it's super risky for kids to do it. using children for sex is a HUGE world wide business.

[Colobo]

12. What a stupid state

I live in...

[Hardrada]

14. FLORIDA again!

And my SIL has a house down in The Villages too! (Storm luckily missed it).

[sarcasmo]

16. This Country is beyond out of control. We have reach the Stupidity Point.

[The Straight Story]

17. While this case is pretty dumb, there are some decent reasons for the law

Mainly, that there are a lot of predators (and internet web site owners) who could entice young kids into sending them nude photos of themselves (via money and attention) and this would feed the child porn industry.

Taking photos and sharing them with your mate is one thing, but the law seems not to cover specifics. You make kiddie porn, even if it is of yourself, it is against the law.

I agree with the dissent as it seems common sense - that is why we have judges, to determine if this case merits criminal prosecution. They are to 'judge' based on the facts of the case in front of them.

[JackRiddler]

23. If judges would reasonably apply existing laws

as judges, in the sense you are saying, we'd hardly have need of any further criminal laws.

Of course, the trend is in the other direction of subordinating the judiciary to politics and the hysteria of the moment, and forcing interpretations upon them with no-choice laws (three strikes and the like).

But that's not really what's going on here: it's not literalism that makes these judges so stupid, it's hard-heartedness. They know they can decide otherwise, and here they are punishing these teens for having sex with each other, and striking the fear of god into everyone else with the message that "justice" is basically arbitrary.

[MadHound]

22. This is some fine doublespeak here,

"if these pictures are ultimately released, future damage may be done to these minors' careers or personal lives." Much like the future damage that is going to be done as both of these kids are labeled as sexual offenders and pedaphiles. They will be limited in where they live, work and associate with. There is also the distinct possibility that clueless fools will try at some future date to extract "justice" vigilante style due to these labels the state will pin on them.

This is a completely idiotic ruling, and is hopefully overturned. If not, these kids are going to be consigned to a life of living hell, simply for the crime of being sexually experimental kids.

[JackRiddler]

25. kick.