Teens who take nude pix of themselves -- are they child pornographers?

I thought this case had been settled, but boy, was I wrong: A federal appeals court is going to decide whether three girls, ages 12, 12 and 16, can be prosecuted for child pornography -- for photos they took of themselves. (Two of the girls were in training bras. The 16-year-old was wearing a towel, but her breasts were exposed.)

The local DA threatened them with child pornography charges after the photos started to get around school. He'd let them off the hook if they wrote essays, attended a special class and kneeled before Zod. Instead, their parents went to federal court, which basically quashed prosecution.

So the prosecutor has now gone to a federal appeals court ...

Comments

[Stifled Freedom]

It sounds like two of the girls really did not involve pornography if no private parts were exposed. You can see that on the cover of any magazine at the grocery store.

Pick up a copy of Teen Vogue sometime. It is loaded with pictures of naked or nearly naked underage girls. This is much more exploitive than girls photographing themselves....but society does nothing because magazines are corporately sanctioned.

[Brad]

But if they sent it to my phone, I'd be charged.

[FanDanGo]

Not if you deleted it.

Shouldn't the issue be intent? Pervs soliciting kids to send them images that are then pushed to a broader audience is really the distribution of child pornography; teens or tweens "sexting" back and forth isn't.

[cripjak]

I can't wait foe Aqua, MIAM and KC Cicero to see this.

[cripjak]

for

[X-raygal]

Who is Zod?

[Stifled Freedom]

FanDanGo, no. They dont have to prove intent. Recall the articles here in the Star where federal persecutors where charging people whose computers had been hijacked and child porn shoved onto the hard drives without the owner's awareness.

Deleting only removes the evidence. Computer forensics techs can find it after it was deleted. All they have to demonstrate is that it WAS on your computer or phone or whatever.

[Keith G. in P.V.]

But these are the prosecutors we elect! They're tough on crime and protecting our kids.

Actually, they're just running for reelection. District Attorney George Skumanick lost last November after 20 years in office, and his successor was sworn in on January 7th. But no prosecutor's office wants to give up the ability to charge and prosecute.

And those freaking liberal ACLUers are helping defend the girls. Be a lemming. Walk away from your rights, and curse the ACLU.

[im not 1 of the sheeple]

seems to me a parent wouldnt approve of any type of provacative pics on their kids phones or computer. but as you say, its all over the media, so kids just think its ok, its a trend, its accepted. i dont think it says much postive about the parenting skills of the girls involved. at 12, having a pic of yourself in a training bra, what will she be displaying at 16.

who is to say these girls arent on the internet in chatrooms, on myspace or like sites, and that predators arent looking for any hint of sexual inuendo either by pics there or elsewhere or in bits of their profiles. i dont think the judge was wrong to point out this is both wrong and stupid. but as the one parent put it, they were being goof balls. yet i reckon she would be plenty upset if her kid were the victim of a crime.

if pple had to take a common sense test before becoming a parent, i wonder how many less children there would be in the world.

[cripjak]

What exactly are "re-education classes" Where have I read that before?

[Tom K]

If I would be put in jail for looking at it, then they can go to jail for just as long for making it.

I don't care. They treat people worse than murderers for looking at pictures. They can go right ahead and mistreat stupid children which is something that they like to do anyway.

[Keith G. in P.V.]

im not 1 of the sheeple asks "at 12, having a pic of yourself in a training bra, what will she be displaying at 16."

Answer: perhaps no more than now, but in something called a "bikini top" rather than a "training bra." Odd how the description of basically the same piece of clothing taints our perception.

As to your speculation about what the girls do on their computers is just that...speculation. I would be shocked if LEOs hadn't fully delved into their Facebook and Myspace pages, and probably their emails, texts and computer contents themselves.

[You're a Sober Drunk R2D2]

For pete's sake.. they're boobs.. not a private part.

[SaveChildren]

Such a sad thing to see children being abused in such a manner. I hope they lock away those girls who are responsible for a very long time.

[k]

Why do teens (defined legally as children) need camera phones? or cell phones? Maybe if parents parented, and didn't try to be best friends with their kids, this would happen less.

[parkay]

The production of child porn is a serious offense and a threat to the safety of all of our children, no matter who commits it. Prosecute 'em.

[KC Cicero]

OK, Parkay, you are officially off the edge of the flat earth.

Even if we accept the premise that ACTUAL child pornography -- real pre-pubic children engaged in sex acts -- should be prosecutable (which is only justified on the theory that the child is victimized, remember)this is just NUTS!

How are we "protecting" these kids by making them criminals?

The FIRST duty of a prosecutor is to NOT file unwarranted charges -- especially when it might be politically profitable to do so. This prosecutor has betrayed his first duty.

[Mike]

"kneel before Zod" .... lol ... Smallville fan?

[Unbelievable]

Guess they will be registered sex offenders.. Ah nothing like filling up the registry with teen girls, drunks, and mooners. You know people we need to keep an eye on.

It's an irony that the laws that were put in place to protect children from abuse are now abusing the same children it was suppose to protect.

[coach outlet]

nothing is impossible for a willing heart.