These were pictures taken with the consent of the girls because he said he could get them modeling jobs. These girls are old enough to drive, have jobs, but apparently not old enough to decide for themselves if they want to take off their clothes for a photographer? The real ironic thing is that if he had had sex with them instead then that would have been legal (age of consent in IN is 16) but by taking their nude picture he’s now considered a sex offender.
I think those creating and possessing child pornography should be prosecuted, but how did a jury consider nude pictures to be porn (or 17 year olds to be children)?
State statute - creating/possessing obscene images of minors (under 18). In previous articles/tv news stories his attorney said said that while the subjects were fully nude and were minors, the pictures didn’t have any content or act that would constitute an obscene image (sexual contact, insertion, etc. I assume) that would be considered pornographic.
I noticed that also, that the report used the term “explicit” in the article. I’m not sure what that means exactly in this case - I doubt that the report saw the pictures so he may have been quoting the prosecutor. Keep in mind the Indianapolis Star is very conservative and is/was owned by Dan Quayle’s family.
And “sexual conduct” is defined as “sexual intercourse, deviate sexual conduct, exhibition of the uncovered genitals intended to satisfy or arouse the sexual desires of any person, sado-masochistic abuse, sexual intercourse or deviate sexual conduct with an animal, or any fondling”. I’ll bet the italicized portion leaves much room to convict the guy.
My temper gets shorter and shorter every time something like this comes up. Let’s be rational about this, shall we?
This 44 year old photographer took nude pictures of high school girls, claiming it would help them get modeling jobs. Not one of the cites indicates this to have actually occurred, which would seem to indicate that he was misleading, at best. Should this man have known the laws applicable in his state? Yes. Ignorance of the law, and so on. That he didn’t is not acceptable. Consider the rest of the facts:
Yes, a 17 year old can receive a state issued driver’s license, with parental consent.
Yes, apparently the applicable state law designates 16 as the AOC for sexual purposes. This law is not the most directly relevant. Note the actual laws he was charged and convicted of violating.
No, a 17 year old cannot own real estate, vote, or purchase alcohol.
We do not in this society recognize 17 year olds as adults, with adult responsibility and freedom. That this professional photographer wasn’t searching for legal adults to pose nude should cause all to question his judgment. If the judge, having heard all the facts in the case, unlike you and I, described this man as “not getting it” when imposing sentence, I cede to his judgment.
Child porn is an emotional issue, so logic flies out the window. The law says anyone under 18 is a minor a nude pictures are porn. Period. No exceptions.
Logically, ** H8_2_W8,** you can make a case that this is a bit silly – the girls can have sex but can’t pose for photos. But the law does not allow for exceptions, and any DA who doesn’t throw the book at someone is perceived as weak. Plus it’s an easy case to get an conviction on, making the DA look good. So whether or not it makes sense, if you do it, you’re going down.
Around here, the press is making a big deal about someone who was charged with trying to lure an underaged girl to meet with her for sex. The DA’s case was a bit silly (he talked with an undercover cop who posed as a teenager; I’d think a good lawyer could have torn the entire case to shreds), so they got an ajournment in contemplation of dismissal. It was a fairly reasonable way to go, but the press got hold of it (the person was an former arms inspector) and suddenly everyone is scandalized that they didn’t throw the book at the guy (and give him a whole ninety days for a misdemeanor charge). Under the current climate, no DA will ever drop a case like this.
However, any adult should be aware of the social climate. Having anything to do with nude photos of a minor is playing with dynamite and it’s just plain stupid to knowingly take those photos or even download them onto your computer.
"how did a jury consider nude pictures to be porn "
You would have to ask them that one. They might have been from a very conservative community. Ironically, they would have to have looked at the photos to determine this.
Many years ago, I bought a guide to nude beaches around the world. It included photos from many of the locations listed. Most of the naked people in the photos were adults, but there were some children and teens.
There’s nothing sexual or erotic about any of the photos, and I can’t imagine anyone concluding any of the photos were pornographic, but I guess I ought to be careful about who sees that book. :rolleyes:
Jonathan’s advice is, sadly, sound. You may not think it’s erotic, but you’re not the one making the call. The person who will decide will quite possibly be a DA who sees a chance to fatten up his record of convictions.
What is it that a Supreme Court Justice said about pornography…“I can’t define it, but I’ll know it when I see it” or something like that.
Seems to me that tricking people into taking off their clothes and making false promises should somehow be against the law no matter what the age of the victims. But the fact that he’s taking advantage of children deserves to be punished.
My SO told me a story about when he was 16 or 17 (way before he met me), a family friend, an older man from his church invited him over to his house. The man had talked with him before about being photographed, supposedly to practice his photo techniques, and maybe to even send the photos of my SO to a modeling agency or magazines, etc. Since my SO trusted the man, he went over to his house one weekend and went along with the poses he was suggesting, and even stripped naked!!! I just couldn’t believe he fell for this, but then again, he was just a kid at the time. He said finally when the man suggested that he * come over and adjust SO’s private parts*, SO finally snapped back to reality and got the hell out of there. Pretty scary. And also, to think that guy probly has pics of my SO hidden somewhere!!! I wonder if that guy was ever caught, probably not…he hid behind the cover of being a church goer, pillar of the community, etc.
It’s too bad there will always be predators like that out there, no matter how many of them are caught and end up in jail, there will always be more of them.
There’s also Sally Mann’s book Immediate Family which you can find on Amazon, containing nude photos of her children, including on the cover.
If simply having nude photos of someone under the age of 18 is illegal than a lot of us are in trouble, especially with some of our younger family photos. The intent to arouse is the key thing: The nude photos of Brooke Shields were intended as art, but it sounds like whoever this person was was more interested in something else.
Also, parental consent comes in. Brooke’s mom okayed her photo shoot; Sally Mann is the mother of the children in the book; and Thora Birch had to have her mom’s consent before they would film her topless scene.
Of course, parental consent won’t do anything if there is actual erotisicm involved.
Because of that, photos from beaches overseas, nudist guide books, nudist camp photos, family pictures, etc., shouldn’t be considered child pornography.
Legally, yeah, its softcore porn. There’s clearly no “art” component to these photos, and the guy was a jerk. Realistically on the other hand, the girls in question were 17. By no stretch of the imagination could they be called children, considered unaware of the gravity of the situation, or claim harm from it.