Oh, and for the record, common sense would suggest that you not give legal advice (which you were doing) without being licensed to do so.
Oh, no, wait, that’s not common sense. It’s the law. My mistake.
You’re welcome. But trust me it’s true.
Um, so, how come I periodically hear flaps in the news about parents being busted for child pornography based on the fact that they took photos of their naked kids in the bathtub or on the beach?
When my sister was two, she had a habit of taking her clothes off and doing things like jump into fountains at shopping malls. One day, she had stripped and, in a matter of seconds, covered herself from head to toe in backyard dirt. My mother was not at home at the time, and my stepfather, thinking she would not believe my sister had done this, snapped a Polaroid picture of said dirty, naked toddler.
If this had been a conventional film camera, and the film were taken to a developer, theoretically, my stepfather could (and in the current climate, quite probably would) have been arrested for chicken pornographizing.
People People!!
All I wanted to do was determine if the govt was overstepping the law to catch these people. Now that it is solved they had not, we can drop the subject.
There is no need for fighting and back biting.
I have seen cases in some very reserved cities where parents have been questioned or arrested for having innocent nude pics of their own kids, I have also seen cases where this has been dropped because it was foudn to be just that.
Can’t we all just get along?
Amen to that! Assertions in GQ ought be backed up with citations. But lack of citations does not give license to get nasty.
Let’s all play nice, please.
In one I’ve heard about, they returned the computers in a couple of days. But right now it seems possible that they got a search warrant mostly because someone was spammed with kiddie porn UCE.
After all, if a person didn’t want spam, then why would so many spammers be sending them messages? Victims of spammers are verrrrrry suspicious, no?
Sigh.
I bet I get several “underage beastiality” porno spams per week (but then I get about 500 spams per week. No joke.) If the FBI people haven’t been online for several years, then they have no idea what scumbags the spammers are.
The fact is that the (possibly overzealous and paranoid) prosecutor gets to decide whether a photo is “sexual” or not.
As Handy said, the pics don’t even have to be naked.
KneadToKnow, FYI, pictures of nekkid kids isn’t illegal. Pictures of nekkid kids in sexual or graphic positions or implied raunch is illegal.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=95644 , in which Niobium Knight asks about the legality of it. There are some interesting posts you may want to read.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=52230 here’s another.
You may want to do a little background searching before you throw comments like that around.
Just FTR, the FBI did not set up any of the egroups. There were three which they investigated. The only one that has had its name released so far is the Candyman egroup. That’s why the FBI called its investigation “Operation Candyman”.
http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/candyman/candymanhome.htm
Carry on.
Having read this discussion, and the links provided in other threads, the fact remains that child porn and its definition falls to the prosecutor and those pushing his/her buttons to effect a desired outcome.
We may all sit here and pontificate with intelligent thought, opinion and credible cites. Yet, it will be the prosecutor who lays the charges and takes you to court. It will be the prosecutor, and those with power and influence with the prosecutor, who really decide who gets charged and who does not.
Not everyone lives within jurisdictions with concerned, literate, fair and objective police, prosecutors, police and ordinary folk.