I'm having trouble understanding hy this is illegal

[adam]

If the images do not depict "explicit sexual activity" than no it doesn't matter if he modifies the pictures to look like children. "Explicit sexual activity" is indeed open to interpretation and it does include things short of physical sex. I believe sexual poses graphically displaying genetalia would qualify. Think Hustler Magazine type images.

In the US, possession/traficking/creation of child pornography is a federal offense so there's not going to be any deviation in the law from one state to another. But all legal matters are open to interpretation, that's kinda the point of having a jury system where you are judged by your peers.

If its any consolation, individuals who are convicted of child pornography typically waive jury sentencing and opt to have the judge sentence them. Juries are shocked and angered when they see this stuff and tend to give out very harsh sentences. Judges see it frequently and while they aren't exactly insensitive about it, they are more objective. They've seen the worst of the worst so they cut a guy some slack in a case like this, even though it all falls into the category of child pornography.

[hudsonf]

It's still considered 'child pornography' if you have of-age people and represent them as underage in a sexual manner.

Is "Debbie does Dallas" child pornography?

technically - yes

but so is a whole bunch of other movies - mainstream even i suppose



btw = several people have been arrested for having Hentai in the USA

It's been a while since I watched Debbie Does Dallas so I could be wrong but wasn't they supposed to be seniors in high school?

[Conquest10]

I don't know but the majority of people I went to school with were under 18 in their senior year. I was considered the old geezer because I was one of the only ones that was able to vote.

[BJ_M]

It's been a while since I watched Debbie Does Dallas so I could be wrong but wasn't they supposed to be seniors in high school?

i got them mixed up -- i meant another famous porn star who started her career underage

[Conquest10]

Traci Lords

[SquirrelDip]

If its any consolation, individuals who are convicted of child pornography typically waive jury sentencing and opt to have the judge sentence them. Juries are shocked and angered when they see this stuff and tend to give out very harsh sentences. Judges see it frequently and while they aren't exactly insensitive about it, they are more objective. They've seen the worst of the worst so they cut a guy some slack in a case like this, even though it all falls into the category of child pornography.

I didn't realize the accused had the option of having the judge pass sentence - I agree with the preference for precisely the reasons you stated.

[FulciLives]

btw = several people have been arrested for having Hentai in the USA

What !?!?!?!

So it's OK that a 14 year old Jodi Foster plays a prostitute in TAXI DRIVER but I can get arrested for enjoying tentacle sex in a way I am sure H.P. Lovecraft never imagined?

That's just not right !!!

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[Lucifers_Ghost]

btw = several people have been arrested for having Hentai in the USA

What !?!?!?!

So it's OK that a 14 year old Jodi Foster plays a prostitute in TAXI DRIVER but I can get arrested for enjoying tentacle sex in a way I am sure H.P. Lovecraft never imagined?

That's just not right !!!

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

I must admit .. never in my lifetime did I think I would see the words "sex" and "tentacle" in the same sentence lol

[FulciLives]

btw = several people have been arrested for having Hentai in the USA

What !?!?!?!

So it's OK that a 14 year old Jodi Foster plays a prostitute in TAXI DRIVER but I can get arrested for enjoying tentacle sex in a way I am sure H.P. Lovecraft never imagined?

That's just not right !!!

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

I must admit .. never in my lifetime did I think I would see the words "sex" and "tentacle" in the same sentence lol

I take it you have never seen Japanese Hentai porn anime before? LOL

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[zzyzzx]

If the images do not depict "explicit sexual activity" than no it doesn't matter if he modifies the pictures to look like children. "Explicit sexual activity" is indeed open to interpretation and it does include things short of physical sex. I believe sexual poses graphically displaying genetalia would qualify. Think Hustler Magazine type images.

Mmmmmm Hustler... my favorite.

[Lucifers_Ghost]

btw = several people have been arrested for having Hentai in the USA

What !?!?!?!

So it's OK that a 14 year old Jodi Foster plays a prostitute in TAXI DRIVER but I can get arrested for enjoying tentacle sex in a way I am sure H.P. Lovecraft never imagined?

That's just not right !!!

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

I must admit .. never in my lifetime did I think I would see the words "sex" and "tentacle" in the same sentence lol

I take it you have never seen Japanese Hentai porn anime before? LOL

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

Cant say that I have lol ... And something tells me my retina's are thanking me this very second haha

[hudsonf]

I don't know but the majority of people I went to school with were under 18 in their senior year. I was considered the old geezer because I was one of the only ones that was able to vote.

I don't think they were trying to make the girls under age just young. College would have made them to old.

[MOVIEGEEK]

In the US, and probably most other places, child pornography requires the depiction of explicit sexual acts. Just showing a nude child or even showing simulated sexual activity of minors is not considered child pornography. (I believe there is a sex scene in Blue Lagoon with Brooke Shields.)

AFAIK in the US any images of nude children or children posing in a lewd manner is illegal,film/video is a grey area because technically adult porn is prostitution but they get away with it because they are "actors".
BTW...I like the sig adam.

As for Tracy Lords nobody was prosecuted for statutory rape or delinquency of a minor because she lied about her age,the courts only had her "early" films pulled from distribution.

[adam]

AFAIK in the US any images of nude children or children posing in a lewd manner is illegal, film/video is a grey area because technically adult porn is prostitution but they get away with it because they are "actors".
BTW...I like the sig adam.

If it does not show actual sexual activity, graphic simulated sexual activity, or display the genitals than by definition it cannot be child pornography. There are also several federal statutes regarding obscene material generally and a lewd picture of a child could definitely fall into this category, but I cannot see how a naked picture of a child could. Also the obscenity statutes for images generally deal with other areas such as importation and physical transportation. If you are talking about posting a picture on the internet than the only way it could violate the Federal statute is if you were selling the image, or, in an ironic twist, if you did not take adequate precautions to ensure that minors could not gain access.

The test for whether something is obscene is if

a "trier of fact" (judge or jury) finds that "the average person, applying adult community standards, would find that the material, taken as a whole, appeals to a prurient interest in sex, depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct, and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."

This is all under Federal Law. All but a handful of states have passed their own obscenity laws as well but most mirror the federal statutes almost word for word. Here is a compilation of all of the state obscenity laws as well as the federal ones.
http://www.moralityinmedia.org/nolc/index.htm?statutesIndex.htm

Btw: My sig is a line from a song called Flagpole sitting.

As for Tracy Lords nobody was prosecuted for statutory rape or delinquency of a minor because she lied about her age,the courts only had her "early" films pulled from distribution.

Actually the only reason the prosecutions were dropped was because she had a fake id, and a damn good one. It was a US passport. Statutory rape imposes strict liability, meaning that it doesn't matter if you were lied to or if you genuinely believed the person was of age. About your only defense is that you were legitimately duped with a very convincing form of id.

[Supreme2k]

Actually, it's Flagpole sitta by Harvey Danger.


"I...wanna publish scenes...and rage against machines..."

[NiteLite]

My issues have to do with errors and how easy in some situations it is to make an error. I agree with the first post - the intent was to make the photos appear to be real children.

"With the "Intent".

That word [intent] is used by law enforcement to justify, to their own benefit, many grey areas...at least in my experiences - not personal - in my county and state.
For instance, a small amount of illegal contraband - say drugs - can be bumped into much more serious status from adding the word intent a few times to an otherwise minor charge.
Intent to manufacture, intent to sell, intent to deliver, etc.
After all the "intents"- whether realized or not - one can then lose his auto, money, home and serve serious time.
In my area it's being abused like crazy in drug related cases.
Even just carrying large amounts of cash is enough to draw suspicions from law enforcement to look for "intent".
It's probably a factor in this guys case. I surely wouldn't want to be in his shoes which appears to soon be standard issue. Not being in the US though makes his circumstances foreign to me.
NL
.

[SquirrelDip]

I understand your concern with the (overuse) of "intent" but in this case I think that "intent" is appropriate.

Or maybe he accidently converted the pictures of Serenity to look like a 10 year old Macaulay Culkin... I've just checked the "Tools" link and can't seem to find that Photoshop Plug-In...

[NiteLite]

I understand your concern with the (overuse) of "intent" but in this case I think that "intent" is appropriate..

My apologies for the confusion, SquirrelDip.
I was just generalizing. I agree with you. It does appear appropriate here.
I was just trying to convey how the word "intent" can lead to many unknown factors and forgot to get back to explain I just used the quote for that word, "intent".

Darn this is the second time I have done this in as many weeks.
The first time the poster didnt accept my apologies. I hope you see my intent was harmless and not directed at you or your post. Just when I saw the word intent it brought up all kinds of possibilities this guy can possible get into.
Regards,
NL

I must remember to not use post quotes to generalize.
I must remember to not use post quotes to generalize.
I must...........

[Supreme2k]

I would have to agree that "intent" is to general and overused.

It seems too much like a thought crime. Often times "six degrees of separation" of sorts. Take for example drug usage. I've known some heavy marijuana users who never sold it. Yet, if they were caught, they'd get a "dealer" charge thrown at them. Someone who photoshops kids (or adults) in the ways mentioned, while having a few screws loose, aren't necessarily violent criminals (or criminals at all.

I don't see how "intent" could apply to the child porn. It seems almost like saying that if someone shoots a gun at a cardboard cutout of a person, then they'll go kill the real person soon. There's too much merit given to the notion of "gateway".

[BJ_M]

..............................

If it does not show actual sexual activity, graphic simulated sexual activity, or display the genitals than by definition it cannot be child pornography. There are also several federal statutes regarding obscene material generally and a lewd picture of a child could definitely fall into this category, but I cannot see how a naked picture of a child could. ........................

"display the genitals " is a worry some statement - because just about anyone who has kids has taken some pictures of them taking a bath etc as babies or very very young ... and may show some 'parts' .... NOT PORN type though ..

also - what about all the paintings by the 'masters' showing nudity (and some are not all that tame) from people of all ages ....?


in other words - AT TIMES it is hard to define porno - yet I understand that much of this child porno is really graphic stuff that one would not have a prob. classifying (thank god i havnt seen any or want to either) ......

its when it is in this grey area that is worry some -- drawings , art (true art that is) and innocent family pics that some jerk at walmart will turn you in for (once even accused or investigated for any type of porn or sex crime will make your life hell forever - undisputed fact. ) ...


then again - since i have kids , i am glad that such things are taken seriously , but i hate to see innocent people branded sex offenders for such things as both party consenting under age sex (which is legal in most states) , but not in all , public urination (when your drunk and in an ally and got to go - you got to go -- but that can put your name on the list if caught in many states ... and a bunch of other things ...

[KBeee]

The problem I have with this is that it seems to undermine the purpose of the law, i.e. to protect children.
A "real" child pornographic image means a real child was abused.
If the "fake" image (where no real child was abused) carries a similar or only slightly milder jail sentence, then why fake it? Use real images, and abuse real children.
"You might as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb" could apply here.

[handyguy]

In the usa it's legal (Although some states like Virginia made their own laws prohibiting it) because our law only protects actual minors not VIRTUAL minors.

(High Court Strikes Virtual Child Porn Law
The US Supreme has declared unconstitutional a federal law making it a crime to display of images altered by computer to look like actual children engaged ...
usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa041602a.htm)

[SquirrelDip]

I understand your concern with the (overuse) of "intent" but in this case I think that "intent" is appropriate..

My apologies for the confusion, SquirrelDip.
I was just generalizing. I agree with you. It does appear appropriate here.
I was just trying to convey how the word "intent" can lead to many unknown factors and forgot to get back to explain I just used the quote for that word, "intent".

Darn this is the second time I have done this in as many weeks.
The first time the poster didnt accept my apologies. I hope you see my intent was harmless and not directed at you or your post. Just when I saw the word intent it brought up all kinds of possibilities this guy can possible get into.
Regards,
NL

I must remember to not use post quotes to generalize.
I must remember to not use post quotes to generalize.
I must...........

No need for apologies - I'm agreeing with you. Especially for the example you gave. I'm just saying that in this situation I believe that intent is appropriate.

[Conquest10]

I also don't like that "intent" when someone has a lot of drugs. A couple of pounds I can see intent but one or two bags of marijuana could be for personal use. They immediately say, who uses that much drugs? But think about it. Why do people like to shop at stores like Costco? For a casual drug user, it might make more sense to buy in bulk and save a few bucks than to constantly buy small amounts when needed.

[MOVIEGEEK]

I also don't like that "intent" when someone has a lot of drugs. A couple of pounds I can see intent but one or two bags of marijuana could be for personal use. They immediately say, who uses that much drugs? But think about it. Why do people like to shop at stores like Costco? For a casual drug user, it might make more sense to buy in bulk and save a few bucks than to constantly buy small amounts when needed.

Customer to clerk-"excuse me...where's your marijuana?"
Clerk to customer-"on aisle 5 next to the crack"

[adam]

"display the genitals " is a worry some statement - because just about anyone who has kids has taken some pictures of them taking a bath etc as babies or very very young ... and may show some 'parts' .... NOT PORN type though ..

I was giving the bare minimum requirement, making the point that a provocative pose alone is not child pornography unless the genitals are exposed. The federal law goes into more detail:

graphic or simulated lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person

handyguy: You're right. I totally missed that case and the current wording of the statute seems to still outlaw pornography depicting, "virtual minors," because the current version still talks about digitally altering images to look like minors. But as you say, the image has to be identifiable as an actual minor. So if you took a child's face and pasted it on a man's body engaging in sexual activity, that would be child pornography. Or if you made a totally cg image of a child, but it was "indistinguishable" from the actual person, it would also be child pornography. But if you altered a man's face to make it appear that it was a minor, that would not be child pornography.