Distributing child porn = sending a friend a photo of yourself?

image

A teenage girl who appeared topless in a “sexting” cell phone picture that was distributed among her middle-school classmates should face child-pornography charges so argues a Pennsylvania prosecutor before a U.S. appellate court.

In the first U.S. case to test the constitutional status of “sexting,” the American Civil Liberties Union countered that the incident does not come close to meeting the definition of child pornography which typically depicts graphic sexual acts with minors and is done for commercial gain.

The ACLU also said the Wyoming County prosecutor erred when he threatened 16 teenagers with the felony charges unless they agreed to a participate in a “re-education” course on why sexting was wrong…

Pictures showed two of the girls wearing white bras and another standing topless outside a shower with a towel wrapped around her waist, the ACLU said. The pictures did not show any sexual activity…

But the county argued that the pictures were pornographic because they were disseminated for the purposes of sexual stimulation and so would be of great interest to child molesters.

Appellate Judge Thomas Ambro said prosecutors are not entitled to try to “re-educate” minors. “I don’t know of anything that allows the district attorney’s office to play the role of teacher,” he said.

Courts and politicians that concern themselves with morality should wend their way into non-existence. Such courts have no place in a modern, educated nation.

Adjudicating harm and damages, crimes and misdemeanors, is tough enough. Presuming religious sway over behavior is a couple centuries out of place.

3 thoughts on “Distributing child porn = sending a friend a photo of yourself?

  1. Mr. Fusion says:

    You so much remind me of someone I met online, and of whom
    several of the regulars here know of. His handle was Alfred1.

  2. Tom Baker says:

    Child pornography is child pornography. Whether the picture was taken by a teen for another teen or whether it happened to be posted online by a bitter ex-boyfriend. Photos of nude underage children is child pornography. How can the same photographic image mean two different things depending on who is holding the image?

    • Mr. Fusion says:

      It depends upon what you say is porn. Why would a picture of my 3 month old daughter being bathed and a 12 y/o stepping out of a shower with a towel around her waist not be considered the same?

      The argument is child porn exploits the child. A child can not exploit them self. Maybe you should read the article next time.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.