VeeshanVault

Boogahz wrote:Well, considering that the "law" finds it to be porn...that's rather easy to answer.

Many states also address this issue by prohibiting images of minors touching or displaying their bodies "for the purpose of sexual stimulation of the viewer." (See, for example, California Penal Code §§ 311.3-312.7).

Section (E) prohibits images of "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area." Courts that have interpreted this section have done so broadly - "as used in the child pornography statute, the ordinary meaning of the phrase "lascivious exhibition" means a depiction which displays or brings forth to view in order to attract notice to the genitals or pubic area of children, in order to excite lustfulness or sexual stimulation in the viewer." See United States v Knox (1994). You may risk prosecution if your website displays images of minors depicted in a way that excites viewers.

VariaVespasa wrote:

Boogahz wrote:Well, considering that the "law" finds it to be porn...that's rather easy to answer.

Cite that law. I find it hard to believe there are no context caveats included.

Morgrym wrote:Depends on if it's my own child as a baby in the bath or something to that effect. Anything over 1ish I would consider improper.

Sirensa wrote:Can't vote - depends on the context!

Boogahz wrote:or posted in a sexual context

pictures of your naked baby's first bath are okay, but when you post that you are "excited" by the sight of the naked baby, it is not.

Supreme Court strikes down ban on 'virtual child porn'

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday struck down a 6-year-old law that prohibits the distribution and possession of virtual child pornography that appears to -- but does not -- depict real children.

The law had banned a range of techniques -- including computer-generated images and the use of youthful-looking adults -- which were designed to convey the impression of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct.

The 6-3 ruling says the law violates the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech. The decision hands a major setback to the Justice Department and the majority of Congress in their legislative efforts to fight child pornography.

Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said key provisions of the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 were "overbroad" and infringed on established protections of material with artistic value that does not violate community standards.

"Pictures of what appear to be a 17-year-old engaging in sexually explicit activity do not in every case contravene community standards," the court said.

"The (Act) also prohibits speech having serious redeeming value, proscribing the visual depiction of an idea -- that of teenagers engaging in sexual activity -- that is a fact of modern society and has been a theme in art and literature for centuries."

The opinion cited several artistically significant instances in which teenage sex was portrayed, including William Shakespeare's play "Romeo & Juliet," and the recent movies "Traffic" and "American Beauty."

Kennedy was joined by justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. Clarence Thomas wrote a separate opinion agreeing with their conclusion.

Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, in a dissent, disagreed with much of the majority opinion, and was joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Antonin Scalia.

In a separate dissent Rehnquist, backed by Scalia, strongly disagreed with the majority, saying "the computer-generated images are virtually indistinguishable from real children."

The ruling came in a case named Ashcroft v. The Free Speech Coalition. U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft and President George W. Bush's Justice Department inherited defense of the law from former Attorney General Janet Reno and the President Clinton Justice Department, which had defended the law in the lower courts.

The Free Speech Coalition is comprised primarily of a trade association of publishers of pornographic materials.

Ashcroft said he was disappointed by the court's decision.

"This morning the United States Supreme Court made our ability to prosecute those who produce and possess child pornography immeasurably more difficult," Ashcroft said.

Ashcroft said the Justice Department would use every resource to prosecute child pornography cases and said child pornographers "will find little refuge in today's decision."

He said he would work with Congress to pass new laws that would survive the court's scrutiny.

"I believe today's opinion and the Constitution leave open legislative avenues to protect our children from harm and we will seek to develop the means to do so with legislative endeavor," Ashcroft said.

Still to be decided by the Supreme Court this spring is another case involving a separate law, which specifically restricts the access of minors to sexually explicit material on the Internet.

Siji wrote:If the photograph is sexual in nature, then yes. Otherwise, nude does not always equal porn.

I highly doubt a bunch of teenage friends at a nudist colony taking pictures of each other sitting and laughing around the campfire singing Neil Diamonds greatest hits would be ruled porn in a court of law. It's disgusting that a large number of Americans find nudity to be so shameful.

Guro

A place for the not so nice things in doujins or anime. Blood, gore, violence, rape, all are welcome here... Enter at your own risk as there may be adult material here

Nick wrote:The words "child porn" when being used to describe a topless picture of an actress of a hit movie who is of legal age of consent in most countries is fucking moronic. It's probably still illegal, but then again, there's not exactly a shortage of 18 year old girls in porn who look about 12.

Marbus wrote:The Law says that a picture of an underage adolescent or child is considered or can be considered Child Porn.

Sylvus wrote:I found it interesting that the picture was on Best Week Ever this week. Sure, they had the offending pieces mostly covered up, but it seems odd that they'd even do that if it were child porn.

masteen wrote:Maybe I'm biased, because the 17 year old son of a close family friend got prosecuted for this shit because his girlfriend and her crew (also 16-17 year olds) sent him naked pics from a slumber party or something. Kid has to register as a goddamn sex offender, and that shit almost cost him a scholarship to a very decent out of state college.

Dregor Thule wrote:Unfortunately the law in the US doesn't feel that a minor is responsible for anything

I feel for the 17 year old in your story tho. The laws are far from perfect. Who brought the charges up against him? One of the girls parents?

Dregor Thule wrote:Unfortunately the law in the US doesn't feel that a minor is responsible for anything