NationStates Jolt Archive

Teens prosecuted for racy photos (http://www.news.com/Police-blotter-Teens-prosecuted-for-racy-photos/2100-1030_3-6157857.html?tag=nefd.top)

Yes the date is a while ago.

Technically, those images constitute child pornography. That's what 16-year-old Amber and 17-year-old Jeremy, her boyfriend, both residents of the Tallahassee, Fla., area, learned firsthand. (Court documents include only their initials, A.H. and J.G.W., so we're using these pseudonyms to make this story a little easier to read.)

On March 25, 2004, Amber and Jeremy took digital photos of themselves naked and engaged in unspecified "sexual behavior." The two sent the photos from a computer at Amber's house to Jeremy's personal e-mail address. Neither teen showed the photographs to anyone else.

Court records don't say exactly what happened next--perhaps the parents wanted to end the relationship and raised the alarm--but somehow Florida police learned about the photos.

Amber and Jeremy were arrested. Each was charged with producing, directing or promoting a photograph featuring the sexual conduct of a child. Based on the contents of his e-mail account, Jeremy was charged with an extra count of possession of child pornography.

Wow... just wow. They're underage, and they're accused of making child pornography involving... themselves?

Am I missing something here? Florida has silly laws...

The boy is 17 and the girl is 16, hence under Florida law sexual relations between the two is permitted.

But not all of the bar is ruled by such silliness.

Judge Philip Padovano dissented. He wrote that the law "was designed to protect children from abuse by others, but it was used in this case to punish a child for her own mistake. In my view, the application of this criminal statute to the conduct at issue violates the child's right to privacy under Article 1, Section 23 of the Florida Constitution."
....
If a minor cannot be criminally prosecuted for having sex with another minor, as the court held in B.B., it follows that a minor cannot be criminally prosecuted for taking a picture of herself having sex with another minor. Although I do not condone the child's conduct in this case, I cannot deny that it is private conduct. Because there is no evidence that the child intended to show the photographs to third parties, they are as private as the act they depict...

Sadly the couple was ruled against 2-1.

Thoughts?

This is just an example of the insane restrictions placed on youths that aren't placed on adults. If the couple were adults they wouldn't have faced the court but because they are under age...

THank God the Florida legal system is safeguarding us from these evil pedophiles. :rolleyes:

Awww.....I was hoping the link would have pictures. :(

THank God the Florida legal system is safeguarding us from these evil pedophiles. :rolleyes:

I know. Nipping it in the bud before they ever have a chance to actual experience the world of adulthood. :headbang:

This is just an example of the insane restrictions placed on youths that aren't placed on adults. If the couple were adults they wouldn't have faced the court but because they are under age...

Well.. technically the problem is that making pictures of kids having sex is illegal - regardless of who does it.

How do you suggest the law to be rewritten ?

ah yes, this case. i remember discussing it awhile ago. i don't recall anyone being able to offer a way to make the majority's opinion less nonsensical, but maybe i'm forgetting something.

as stupid as it is, the majority ruling is the correct one. It's not the judges' job to determine what the law should be, it's the judges' job to determine what the law is. Is the application of the law stupid in this instance? Yes. Is it consistant with the reading of the law? Yes.

And that's about it...it's not the job of the judiciary to rewrite nonsensical laws, that's the job of the legislature.

Well.. technically the problem is that making pictures of kids having sex is illegal - regardless of who does it.

How do you suggest the law to be rewritten ?

in a way that doesn't outlaw seeing yourself naked, perhaps?

ah yes, this case. i remember discussing it awhile ago. i don't recall anyone being able to offer a way to make the majority's opinion less nonsensical, but maybe i'm forgetting something.

simple. The law says it is illegal to take pictures of minors in sexual situations, and it is illegal to distribute pictures of minors in sexual situations. The law makes no conditions or exeptions for when the minors take pictures of themselves.

They took and distributed pictures of minors engaged in sexual situations. True they were the minors in question, but again, the law makes no exception to that.

The law, in that regard, is fucking stupid. But it's not the job of the judiciary to correct fucking stupid laws.

in a way that doesn't outlaw seeing yourself naked, perhaps?

Yeah, to be convicted for making child pornography that means they had to have been convicted for taking pictures of themselves.

How do you suggest the law to be rewritten ?

"it is a defense to this statute when the sexual conduct soley involves one or more minors engaged in legal consensual sex and those pictures were taken soley by one or more of those minors and distributed soley between them with no clear showing of intent to distribute to others"

something like that.

in a way that doesn't outlaw seeing yourself naked, perhaps?

So showing them to others would be a crime ?

Ugh... I hate this stuff. Though really, using the rationale for the law against child porn I suppose it can make sense. The idea is to protect children from being reminded of the fact that they were abused, to prevent it from being known and propagated. However, since it is consentual sex between two people who are allowed to have sex legally, I would say it doesn't really apply. The law should be rewritten since apperently some judges don't understand the intent of the law. It should be made to say that someone is only guilty of child pornography charges if over a certain age or, forced the person to comply.

The law should be rewritten since apperently some judges don't understand the intent of the law.

Judges, as a general law, are not allowed to just presume the intent of the law, even if the presumption is a fairly obvious one. Absent a clear statement of legislative intent (was there one here? I don't know) and the presence of plain language, a judge for the most part is bound to uphold the plain language of the statute

Judges, as a general law, are not allowed to just presume the intent of the law, even if the presumption is a fairly obvious one. Absent a clear statement of legislative intent (was there one here? I don't know) and the presence of plain language, a judge for the most part is bound to uphold the plain language of the statute

I don't know but, I think the intent was discussed in a supreme court case, that i looked at over a year ago (so I might be innaccurate here) whether or not the intent was in the law I don't know.

Well.. technically the problem is that making pictures of kids having sex is illegal - regardless of who does it.

How do you suggest the law to be rewritten ?

In Denmark, it's illegal for minors (under 18) to be involved in pornography.

An exception exists, in that a couple may freely exchange such pictures, as long as they are at the age of consent or above (which is either 15 or 16, can't remember). However, these pictures must remain private to the couple and no one else.

Well.. technically the problem is that making pictures of kids having sex is illegal - regardless of who does it.

How do you suggest the law to be rewritten ?

Use the current law that applies to consenting adults.

So if both are minors and of age of consent then they should be allowed to take the pictures of themselves engaged in such acts, as adults are.

Isn't it the job of judges to not only interperet the law, but also it's intent and applicability for the case at hand?

yes, but as I said in the post above, judges have very strong restrictions when it comes to determing legislative intent. If there is no clearly written legislative intent, a judge is typically only allowed to infer intent when the language is ambiguous or not clearly specific.

In this case it IS clearly specific, taking and distributing pictures of underaged persons engaged in sexual conduct is illegal. That's not ambiguous or unclear in the slightest.

If there's no legislative intent to describe when that should not apply, and I dont know if there is in this case, they pretty much have to go with the plain words of the statute.

In other words, there is a presumption in the law that the legislature said what they meant, and meant what they said, absent a clear showing to the contrary. The legislature said taking and distributing pictures of minors engaged in sexual conduct is illegal. They articulated no exception. They meant what they said and said what they meant, and there's no clear rebuttal to that.

as stupid as it is, the majority ruling is the correct one. It's not the judges' job to determine what the law should be, it's the judges' job to determine what the law is. Is the application of the law stupid in this instance? Yes. Is it consistant with the reading of the law? Yes.

And that's about it...it's not the job of the judiciary to rewrite nonsensical laws, that's the job of the legislature.

but the law on this subject is inherently problematic since the law has also declared that they can legally have sex and retain privacy rights in that regard. this is why the majority opinion spent time trying to argue that they didn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy for the pics, as teh internets could be brokened into and someone somewhere at some point might get their hands on the pictures or show them to other people. this is, of course, silly. if such came to pass, an entirely different case would be at hand, with entirely different people charged with a crime.

as stupid as it is, the majority ruling is the correct one. It's not the judges' job to determine what the law should be, it's the judges' job to determine what the law is. Is the application of the law stupid in this instance? Yes. Is it consistant with the reading of the law? Yes.

And that's about it...it's not the job of the judiciary to rewrite nonsensical laws, that's the job of the legislature.

So that whole bit about the checks and balances of the US government is wrong? If judges cannot interpret then it has absolutely zero power over any of the other branches since the executive usually gets what it wants from the legislative. Just get a majority and have a tow-the-line party and suddenly the President COULD make themselves dictator for life and the judges, as mere copy/paste kiddies, don't have the leeway to say 'Hey, that's not what we are supposed to do...' instead of providing some legitimate basis for resistance to their new, friendly overlord.

A bit of an extrapolation, but the logical ramifications of what you indicate are clear. Judges have to be able to interpret the intent and spirit of legal documents if they are to have any usefulness beyond mere instruments of state authority.

So that whole bit about the checks and balances of the US government is wrong? If judges cannot interpret then it has absolutely zero power over any of the other branches since the executive usually gets what it wants from the legislative. Just get a majority and have a tow-the-line party and suddenly the President COULD make themselves dictator for life and the judges, as mere copy/paste kiddies, don't have the leeway to say 'Hey, that's not what we are supposed to do...' instead of providing some legitimate basis for resistance to their new, friendly overlord.

Nonsense. The judiciary has a clear law to interpret to prevent this. It's called the US Constitution. Judges certainly have the power to interpret a law. They can interpret what a law means, they can interpret the constitution to determine whether the law is consistant with the constitution.

What they can't do is substitute their own judgement about what the law should be in clear contradiction to the letter of the law. A president couldn't legally have the legislature pass a law making him dictator for life because the constitution, which is higher authority than any congressional law, says such a thing is impermissible.

However the legislature can do whatever the hell it wants, provided it is not barred by the constitution. The legislature chose, as is its right, to craft this law with no exception. it is not the job of the judiciary to presume that the law should have this exception, and the legislature probably intended to include it, and just forgot.

The job of a judge is to uphold the law. When it is necessary to interpret what the law means in order to interpret it, a judge is free to do so, and, is in fact required to do so. But they can't change the clear wording of a statute because they personally disagree with the outcome. That's the legislature's job.

and in that vein, if 3/4 of the state legislatures decided to amend the constitution to install George W. Bush as dictator for life, well...there's not a damn thing the judiciary can do about it, as the constitution has thus been amended and is now supreme law. The job of the judiciary is not to insert their opinion on what the law should be. The job of the judiciary is to determine what the law is. And in this instance, the law is very clear.

So that whole bit about the checks and balances of the US government is wrong? If judges cannot interpret then it has absolutely zero power over any of the other branches since the executive usually gets what it wants from the legislative. Just get a majority and have a tow-the-line party and suddenly the President COULD make themselves dictator for life and the judges, as mere copy/paste kiddies, don't have the leeway to say 'Hey, that's not what we are supposed to do...' instead of providing some legitimate basis for resistance to their new, friendly overlord.

A bit of an extrapolation, but the logical ramifications of what you indicate are clear. Judges have to be able to interpret the intent and spirit of legal documents if they are to have any usefulness beyond mere instruments of state authority.

Actually, that is what judges are supposed to do, if our legislature was to change the constitution to allow certain things, there would be no judicial recourse, because the judges rule based on what the law says (not what they feel it should say).

Also, the case I refered to earlier was New York vs. Ferber
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_v._Ferber

I can't find the exact law that was written for child pron, and I can't really be bothere dto look it up. Hopefully the intent is there and this can be overturned by a higher court.

However the legislature can do whatever the hell it wants, provided it is not barred by the constitution. The legislature chose, as is its right, to craft this law with no exception. it is not the job of the judiciary to presume that the law should have this exception, and the legislature probably intended to include it, and just forgot.


When did the US Constitution change from enumerating specific powers to congress; to an open allowance for congress to do anything except what was specifically barred?

When did the US Constitution change from enumerating specific powers to congress; to an open allowance for congress to do anything except what was specifically barred?

I will repeat what I said:

However the legislature can do whatever the hell it wants, provided it is not barred by the constitution.

Since the constitution enumerates specific powers to congress, going outside those specific enumerated powers would be, wait for it, barred by the constitution.

Going outside the realm of its allowed powers is barred, and therefore included in my statement. I will also note that "legislature" need not mean "congress". We have 50 state legislatures.

Also, the case I refered to earlier was New York vs. Ferber
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_v._Ferber

Very famous case this. It has to do with the first amendment however and regulating child pornography. What's that have to do with legislative intent regarding a state statute?

I can't find the exact law that was written for child pron, and I can't really be bothere dto look it up. Hopefully the intent is there and this can be overturned by a higher court.

I would hope so, however as this is already the appeals level, I'm pretty sure all relevant written legislative intent has been argued. The problem is, as I said, there is a very strong presumption that the legislature meant what it said, said what it meant, and if they wanted to say it differently, they would have.

It takes a lot to rebut that presumption. I am unsure if this is enough, and really that's a more appropriate decision for a state supreme court.

So showing them to others would be a crime ?

well, yes, though ideally i would put limits on that to some extent too. i really can't work up any righteous indignation about teen sexuality, including teens seeing pictures of other teens fucking. What we really ought to have are some varying levels of allowability for images of naked people. the idea that a sexually explicit picture of someone who is just shy of 18 and one of someone who is 12 and one of someone who is 8 are in anyway the same sort of thing is ridiculous on the face of it. and while i am all in favor of keeping teens out of the pornography biz, i see nothing wrong with people showing pictures of themselves to their friends.

16-year-old Amber and 17-year-old Jeremy..the rationale for the law against child porn I suppose it can make sense. The idea is to protect children ..
...
guilty of child pornography..children?
Child pornography should be about porn with children rite?

17 & 16 years old .. are they "children"?

children?
Child pornography should be about porn with children rite?

17&16.. are they "children"?

Yep; children right to the end. They only become adults one second after seventeen years, 11 months, 30 days, 23 hours and 59 seconds. Then.... one magical second later, they're... ADULTS! ;)

17 & 16 years old .. are they "children"?

as defined by the statute, yes.

as defined by the statute, yes.Yep; children right to the end. They only become adults one second after seventeen years, 11 months, 30 days, 23 hours and 59 seconds. Then.... one magical second later, they're... ADULTS! ;)How do you suggest the law to be rewritten ?I suggest the legal definition of Minor/adult be left alone. for the other purposes. (except Sex and Beer)

I suggest that one magical second (legal definition of Children) be upgraded to your 15 birthday (or 16)

As a result, I say Jeremy and Jessica should be let out of Jail. and Amber too ;-)

P.S. IMO the "magical second" for drinking is set too old at 21.

Those parents have no idea what they have done to their children. That's a sex offender status those kids get for the rest of their lives.

*shakes her head in disbelief*

Well.. technically the problem is that making pictures of kids having sex is illegal - regardless of who does it.

How do you suggest the law to be rewritten ?

I take your point very well, and of course it is the law. I'm not sure how things work in the States, but over here(UK) the CPS(crown prosecution service) could have decided not to prosecute, and in effect let them off, yes even though they technically broke the law.

Does the USA not have a similar service?

I take your point very well, and of course it is the law. I'm not sure how things work in the States, but over here(UK) the CPS(crown prosecution service) could have decided not to prosecute, and in effect let them off, yes even though they technically broke the law.

Does the USA not have a similar service?

what is the CPS for you is effectively the ODA (office of the district attorney). Prosecutors do have discretion as to whom they prosecute.

but the law on this subject is inherently problematic since the law has also declared that they can legally have sex and retain privacy rights in that regard. this is why the majority opinion spent time trying to argue that they didn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy for the pics, as teh internets could be brokened into and someone somewhere at some point might get their hands on the pictures or show them to other people. this is, of course, silly. if such came to pass, an entirely different case would be at hand, with entirely different people charged with a crime.

There is nothing problematic about it. The law is absolutely clear:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002252----000-.html

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002256----000-.html

There is no First Amendment defense to child pornography, nor any "privacy" defense. The Supreme Court has made it very clear that there is a "compelling interest" in restricting depictions of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct. And "any person" means any person, regardless of age.

If minors themselves produce content that is subject to the child pornography laws, they will learn a painful lesson. Maybe other minors who see their friends suffering the consequences of their foolish behavior will think twice before they engage in such conduct themselves. Maybe they'll listen to their parents or other *gasp!* moral authorities. If not, they too will face the music.

And don't expect Congress to carve out an exception for self-produced child pornography. It's not going to happen.

My friend almost got in a huge amount of trouble for this. Luckily the administration at my school is kick ass and did absolutely nothing.

I take your point very well, and of course it is the law. I'm not sure how things work in the States, but over here(UK) the CPS(crown prosecution service) could have decided not to prosecute, and in effect let them off, yes even though they technically broke the law.

Does the USA not have a similar service?
Assuming the CPS is the same as the DA here, yes, they can choose what to prosecute. The problem is that local ones are often elected... The best way to fuck up the legal system is have any one involved in the judicial system elected.

There is nothing problematic about it. The law is absolutely clear:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002252----000-.html

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002256----000-.html

There is no First Amendment defense to child pornography, nor any "privacy" defense. The Supreme Court has made it very clear that there is a "compelling interest" in restricting depictions of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct. And "any person" means any person, regardless of age.

If minors themselves produce content that is subject to the child pornography laws, they will learn a painful lesson. Maybe other minors who see their friends suffering the consequences of their foolish behavior will think twice before they engage in such conduct themselves. Maybe they'll listen to their parents or other *gasp!* moral authorities. If not, they too will face the music.

And don't expect Congress to carve out an exception for self-produced child pornography. It's not going to happen.

Yes, the law is clear. This is why I think it should be changed. And I fail to see how taking pictures of yourself and your partner naked for your own personal use is "foolish behavior" for which you need to learn a "painful lesson" that will effectivley ruin the rest of your life (sex offender status). Furthermore, I would question the need for making an example of those who take private pictures for personal use, as this is an act that harms no one and isn't immoral in the slightest. I would also question the moral authority of these so-called moral authorities. While Others may have legal authority over me, only I have moral authority over myself. No one else.

Actually, I read on CNET that the teens were tried as ADULTS...Total hypocrisy... Which is indicative to me of complete incompetence on the part of the DA who pursued this, the Judge who allowed this to happen, and the Jury who overheard the case...

Their minors for the purpose of the pornography laws; but adults for the purpose of prosecuting them for self-actions?

There is no First Amendment defense to child pornography, nor any "privacy" defense.

yes to the first, no to the second. photographing an act that is already protected by privacy rights, seems on the face of it to be an inherently private act until such time as those photographs are made not private. if the state cannot forbid teens from having sex due to privacy concerns, then how can they justify a law which inherently requires the violation of that privacy to even find out there is any law-breaking being done?

Actually, I read on CNET that the teens were tried as ADULTS

wait wait wait. that moves it beyond mere nonsense and into utterly new realms of total unintelligibility. seriously, wtf?

wait wait wait. that moves it beyond mere nonsense and into utterly new realms of total unintelligibility. seriously, wtf?

I also find it sadly amusing that the penalty for their actions, done under the guise of protecting them from permanent damage to their lives and future careers; is to place upon them a penalty which permanently damaged their future lives and careers; now being registered sex-offenders...

I have nothing but contempt for the DA, Judge, Jury, and Appellate which allowed this to happen.

I have nothing but contempt for the DA, Judge, Jury, and Appellate which allowed this to happen.I agree in a way.. but all they were doing is their Job, apply the Law.
Its the Legislators, they have to write better laws.

yes to the first, no to the second. photographing an act that is already protected by privacy rights, seems on the face of it to be an inherently private act until such time as those photographs are made not private.

Two different issues. The law is directed not to some "private act", but to the production of an image. Practically speaking, minors may engage in sexual conduct behind closed doors and get away from it. 18 USC 2252 doesn't address that. But once they produce a visual depiction of that conduct, they are then subject to the law just like any other adult child pornographer.


if the state cannot forbid teens from having sex due to privacy concerns, then how can they justify a law which inherently requires the violation of that privacy to even find out there is any law-breaking being done?

They can because the Supreme Court has established that Congress can prohibit the production of visual images of actual sexual conduct involving minors. See, e.g., New York v. Ferber, 458 US 747 (1982).

Practically speaking, if naughty minors take pictures of their own behavior, only view them themselves and never reveal them to anyone else for the rest of their lives and beyond, then no prosecution likely will ensue due to lack of evidence. But in reality, such pictures rarely stay secret. And that's the problem: once they get out, they inevitably feed the market for child pornography, a market which Congress has a compelling interest in destroying.

So yes, the law is justified and should be fully enforced. If that means Buffy and Zack have to live with sex-offender status, that's their misfortune and an example to other foolish minors. And to their parents.

Actually, I read on CNET that the teens were tried as ADULTS...Total hypocrisy... Which is indicative to me of complete incompetence on the part of the DA who pursued this, the Judge who allowed this to happen, and the Jury who overheard the case...

Their minors for the purpose of the pornography laws; but adults for the purpose of prosecuting them for self-actions?

That certainly does seem inconsistent. I would have tried them as minors.

I agree in a way.. but all they were doing is their Job, apply the Law.
Its the Legislators, they have to upgrade these stupid laws.
Their position gives them the right to throw shit like this out on grounds that it is total fucking nonsense. The DA I can understand, but the Judge allowing this to go on? He should be thrown from the bench, figuratively and literally.

Their position gives them the right to throw shit like this out on grounds that it is total fucking nonsense. The DA I can understand, but the Judge allowing this to go on? He should be thrown from the bench, figuratively and literally.

this post demonstrates a profound ignorance about how our judicial system works.

Once again, for emphasis, a judge is not allowed to throw out a law because of his personal feelings about it. It's for the legislature to determine what the laws should be.

A judge can't throw out a case because he thinks the law is stupid and doesn't like the outcome.

Assuming the CPS is the same as the DA here, yes, they can choose what to prosecute. The problem is that local ones are often elected... The best way to fuck up the legal system is have any one involved in the judicial system elected.

Then it seems that either the DA here didn't know, didn't take an interest or wanted to go ahead with the prosecution?

I bloody hope it's the first, as the other two smack of idiotness.

You suck Florida.

When did the US Constitution change from enumerating specific powers to congress; to an open allowance for congress to do anything except what was specifically barred?

When the Bill of Rights was ratified.

this post demonstrates a profound ignorance about how our judicial system works.

Once again, for emphasis, a judge is not allowed to throw out a law because of his personal feelings about it. It's for the legislature to determine what the laws should be.

A judge can't throw out a case because he thinks the law is stupid and doesn't like the outcome.

No, but you'ld have to wonderWHY a judge would have gone along with the DA's desire to try them as adults rather than minors... And why in the hell did the DA desire to try them as adults in the first place...

When the Bill of Rights was ratified.

Did you miss Amendments 9 and 10? Or do you simply think they don't exist?

No, but you'ld have to wonderWHY a judge would have gone along with the DA's desire to try them as adults rather than minors... And why in the hell did the DA desire to try them as adults in the first place...
Because it makes him look tough on child porn. The idiots watching the news arn't going to draw the line between underage teenagers being tried for child pornography for taking pictures of themselves & sending them to each other and the teenagers being tried as adults for it.

I would think that if they are tried as adults, a higher court could throw out the conviction on grounds that it doesn't make sense. God damnit, some one raise Johnny Cochran and get him on the Chewbacca defense for these two.

Because it makes him look tough on child porn. The idiots watching the news arn't going to draw the line between underage teenagers being tried for child pornography for taking pictures of themselves & sending them to each other and the teenagers being tried as adults for it.

I would think that if they are tried as adults, a higher court could throw out the conviction on grounds that it doesn't make sense. God damnit, some one raise Johnny Cochran and get him on the Chewbacca defense for these two.

I guess we'll see if this moves up any higher... So far it only looks like we have 1 judge with any lick of common sense that has been involved in this... To quote the joke... "What do you call a lawyer with an IQ less than 60?...... 'Your Honor'".

I guess we'll see if this moves up any higher... So far it only looks like we have 1 judge with any lick of common sense that has been involved in this... To quote the joke... "What do you call a lawyer with an IQ less than 60?...... 'Your Honor'".

Or what do you call 100 lawyers on the bottom of the sea?


A good start!

Well.. technically the problem is that making pictures of kids having sex is illegal - regardless of who does it.

How do you suggest the law to be rewritten ?

Incorrect. The issue is this; Had these two been creating pornography for sale then yest, it would fall under child porn laws, or in NZ law lingo 'distributing objectionable material'. The fact that these two were merely transferring naked photos of themselves to each other is nothing more than two horney kids.

Question is, would this even have been an issue had the photos never been sent via email?

I guess we'll see if this moves up any higher... So far it only looks like we have 1 judge with any lick of common sense that has been involved in this... To quote the joke... "What do you call a lawyer with an IQ less than 60?...... 'Your Honor'".
Did anyone notice the court's opinion was delivered by a former prosecutor? He wasn't ruling on the law, the was fucking prosecuting them. His reasons for the conviction are the biggest load of bullshit I have seen today.

Incorrect. The issue is this; Had these two been creating pornography for sale then yest, it would fall under child porn laws, or in NZ law lingo 'distributing objectionable material'. The fact that these two were merely transferring naked photos of themselves to each other is nothing more than two horney kids.
So do you really think that they, legally, did nothing wrong, but were prosecuted anyway?

Question is, would this even have been an issue had the photos never been sent via email?

Question really is, what, if anything, should be done to change this law?

I think in middle school people should be taught not to document anything they don't want to be accounted for. My dad taught me that a long time ago. Not that he expected me to be a criminal he just taught me the liable aspects of law. :headbang:

I think in middle school people should be taught not to document anything they don't want to be accounted for. My dad taught me that a long time ago. Not that he expected me to be a criminal he just taught me the liable aspects of law. :headbang:

Don't know why you banging you head on a wall. Obviously not all fathers teach there kids the finner aspects of liable laws.

My dad taught me how to fish, and fight, all he really taught me about law was 'Son don't you ever bring the police to my door!'

Question really is, what, if anything, should be done to change this law?of Course.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=13159071

I think in middle school people should be taught not to document anything they don't want to be accounted for. My dad taught me that a long time ago. Not that he expected me to be a criminal he just taught me the liable aspects of law. :headbang:

My dad passed down the fine art of: the Willams 'in your face don't fuck with me' style.

Or what do you call 100 lawyers on the bottom of the sea?


A good start!

Oh, here we go with the lawyer jokes :rolleyes:

OK: How many lawyer jokes are there?









Three. All the rest are true.

vidcaps, or it didn't happen.

When did the US Constitution change from enumerating specific powers to congress; to an open allowance for congress to do anything except what was specifically barred?

Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942).

That's the case in which the Supreme Court held that growing crops on your own land solely for your own private use affected "interstate commerce" and thus was subject to Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce.

After that, pretty much anything Congress wanted to regulate, it could regulate if it can find some way to characterize it as affecting "interstate commerce." Only very recently has the Supreme Court started coming to its senses and saying that some things really don't have anything to do with interstate commerce, regardless of how Congress characterizes them.

Only very recently has the Supreme Court started coming to its senses and saying that some things really don't have anything to do with interstate commerce, regardless of how Congress characterizes them.

For instance, United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995)

For instance, United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995)

Precisely.