Back in 2017, there was a kerfuffle involving the Manassas, Virginia police and their zeal to get a photograph of a teenager’s junk.
Long story short (heh): 17-year-old boy and 15-year-old girl are in a relationship. Girl sends him a sexually-explicit photo or video. He allegedly sends a sexually explicit photo or video in response. Girl’s mom calls the cops, and now the prosecutor wants to ring up the boy on child pornography.
To verify that the dick in the video belongs to the boy, cops want a picture of his dick. International outrage ensues. Questions are raised about Constitutional rights and the production of child pornography to fight child pornography.
Eventually, cops gave up on the plan to photograph the kid’s junk. But that was the last I heard of it. Did he still get tried for child porn? Did any of the cops or prosecutors involved in this situation lose their jobs?
Wouldn’t the kid have obtained a picture of somebody else, some celebrated porn star or somebody to substitute for a picture of himself?
From what I hear, many of the pictures of people on online dating sites are not their actual picture.
As indicated in the linked article and the OP’s description of it, the police were attempting to force Sims to submit to being photographed by police. It would be pretty silly to ask Sims to provide a photo to police, which is why that’s not what happened and something far more fucked up did.
No, I mean the original picture, the one he sent to his girlfriend. Lots of people would have sent her a picture of a celeb porn star, boasting that it was a picture of them.
(Of course, it would have been pointless. Had she reacted as he obviously hoped, then she soon would have had an opportunity to see him ‘in the flesh’, and would have noticed that this reality did not match the picture he had sent her.
But realizing that requires thinking ahead more than a 15-year-old boy typically does.)
People who send dick picks generally don’t send pictures of other people’s dicks. That’s not the point. The personal nature of the photograph is why it’s done. Plus, there’s no reason to automatically disregard the boy claiming it was his penis. That’s what the cops were overzealously trying to figure out in the first place, whether the original picture was the boy’s self-made child porn. If there’s a situation where someone is possibly making child porn of themselves it needs to be handled in an appropriate way, not just ignored as someone sending random porn they found elsewhere.
As someone who has received plenty of unsolicited dick pics, I’d say the vast majority of them are, well, underwhelming. They certainly aren’t very well done photos, and while I’m reluctant to body shame, let’s just say there isn’t anything particularly impressive about most of them, either. I don’t bother to try and confirm anything (usually I reply with something along the likes of, “Oh dude, that looks painful! Definitely go get that checked out!” ). But since most of the pictures I get aren’t anything to brag about, I really don’t think most of them are hunting down celeb photos to pass off as their own.
Worth noting, perhaps, that photographing the penises of men accused of sex crimes seems pretty routine. For just one recent example, the police took a bunch of naked photos of Harvey Weinstein which were then showed to the jury, in an attempt to demonstrate that his genitals were fully as deformed and disgusting as an accuser said they were. But I’ve come across other examples as well, none of which have been treated as legally controversial AFAICT.
IIRC the legal controversy wasn’t about the police taking forensic photos of his genitalia (that’s standard practice with sex crimes for victims & defendants, regardless of their ages) it was about the police trying to force him to masturbate so they could take a photo of his erect penis.
). But since most of the pictures I get aren’t anything to brag about, I really don’t think most of them are hunting down celeb photos to pass off as their own.