Never, ever take pictures of children; not even if you are one

[Universe Prince]

http://reason.com/archives/2010/01/25/ruining-kids-in-order-to-save/singlepage

[Wyoming County District Attorney George] Skumanick would later tell a gathering of students and parents that he had the authority to prosecute girls photographed on the beach in bikinis, because the minors would be dressed "provocatively." He told the Wall Street Journal that by offering the girls the classes and probation instead of immediately hitting them with felony charges, "We thought we were being progressive." [...] The harm here seems to be the possibility that somewhere, someone other than the intended recipient of these photos may be masturbating to them. That's an uncomfortable thought, sure. But it's difficult to see how that presents tangible harm to the minors in the photos, certainly not to the point where the minors themselves ought to be prosecuted. Anyone turned on by the photos in Skumanick's case could just as easily placate themselves with an old Sears catalogue—and with no resulting damage to the models who posed in it. But the idea that an otherwise innocuous image can mutate into illegal child porn based on how it might be used by pedophiles is gaining currency. In 2006, Alabama photographer Jeff Pierson was indicted on federal child porn charges for a website he ran featuring aspiring teen models. None of the models were nude, nor were any depicted engaged in any sexual activity. All of the models' parents signed off on the photos. But federal prosecutors argued the models struck "illegally provocative," "lascivious," and "coy" poses that could entice pedophiles. In 2002, Republican Rep. Mark Foley of Florida (yes, that Mark Foley) introduced the Child Modeling Exploitation Prevention Act, which would have prohibited the sale of any photo of a minor. It failed, but crazy as Foley's bill sounds, it at least would have cleared up the ambiguity. As the website CNET reported in a story about Pierson, federal courts have made the definition of child porn so subjective, "judges and juries [are] faced with the difficult task of making distinctions between lawful and unlawful camera angles and facial expressions." When applied to "sexting" cases, that also leaves prosecutors like Skumanick far too much leeway—enough, for example, for him to believe he can prosecute a girl photographed in a bikini because he finds the photo uncomfortably "provocative." But even when "sexted" photos are unquestionably explicit, there's no justification for criminal charges. Even the deterrent argument falls flat. Despite these high-profile cases, threats of prosecution, and public service announcements on MTV, surveys suggest that about 20-25 percent of young people college-aged and younger have taken or sent sent explicit photos of themselves. That number is rising, not falling.

And just in case you still think you're safe, check out what happened to a grandmother for taking pictures of her three-year-old grandchild.

http://reason.com/blog/2009/05/04/grandma-arrested-for-child-por

Back in 2005, a WalMart worker in Pennsylvania reported 59-year-old Donna Dull to local authorities after Dull dropped off some film that included shots of her three-year-old granddaughter in and just out of the bath. Dull was arrested—roughly, she says—and charged with producing and distributing child pornography. The charges were dropped 15 months later when a Pennsylvania special prosecutor overruled the local DA. Only Dull, her attorney, and police and prosecutors have apparently seen the photos, which are now under seal. She's now suing. [...]           [District Attorney] Rebert said in Dull's case, "What made them offensive was their graphic nature. A little girl with her bare butt showing, kind of looking over her shoulder. "It's a difficult distinction to make. What's a cute butt and what's pornographic? "I think what she (Dull) did was stupid and in very poor judgment. It was an interesting case and I think we did the right thing."           So because the photo could have been interpreted as pornographic by someone who was looking for child porn, arresting the woman and ruining her life (or at least severely disrupting it) was the "right thing" to do. From the description, we aren't talking about splayed legs or exposed genitalia, here. It's a kid's butt, and a playful peer over the shoulder. I'm glad Special Prosecutor Moore overruled District Attorney Rebert, but that Dull was arrested in the first place puts the lie to Moore's assertion that this sort of hysteria "is not a reason for parents and grandparents to avoid taking those pictures." It most certainly is. Or at least getting them printed somewhere outside your home. Unless you consider an arrest and 15 months under the label of "accused child pornographer" to be harmless. It only gets more confusing from there. Here's the prosecutor who initially approved the charges against Dull:           David Cook, now in private practice . . . declined to say if he disagreed with Rebert's decision to dismiss the charges. He did say, "There was no legitimate purpose for those photographs. I would never pose my daughter or my step-daughter like that. "It kind of boils down to a gut feeling. If it feels wrong, it probably is."

In short, no matter what you think of the photos or why you took them, if someone else thinks they might be considered pornographic, you could still end up charged with creating child pornography. So the next time someone says "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about," do not believe them.

[Plane]

Hmmmmm....


Michaelangelo would be in serious trouble , with all those poorly dressed cherubs flitting across the ceiling  for no apparent reason.

[Universe Prince]

No doubt.