If you don't return the book, we'll charge you with child porn

[Farmer]

So if my wife takes a picture of me changing my baby's diapers, put it in a photobook that we share with friends, that's also child porn?

Jesus, these twitfaces need to find better things to do with their time, like, I don't know, pursue actual criminals.

 

[OutHouse]

So if my wife takes a picture of me changing my baby's diapers, put it in a photobook that we share with friends, that's also child porn?

Jesus, these twitfaces need to find better things to do with their time, like, I don't know, pursue actual criminals.

no its not child porn because there is no sex act. BUT parents have lost custody of their kids due to bathtub pictures. so roll the dice and see what happens.

 

[waggy]

wtf this is just stupid.

how could they prove penetration? unless a damn good picture i don't see how. well i guess they could use 4chans X-ray crap they do.

this is a stupid waste of of money and time. not to mention the poor girl. How many people would have known about the pic before this? now? Fuck everyone knows.

I wonder if those that don't bring the book back if the charges would even stick?

 

[OutHouse]

The part where there is no porn or sex act in progress, all it was is a picture of a kid with a hand down another persons pants.

??? so you are at a dance with your date and she lets you put your hand down the front of her pants, thats not a sex act? what else would it be, looking for her keys?

lets reverse it. the girl has her hands down the front of his pants.

 

[waggy]

no its not child porn because there is no sex act. BUT parents have lost custody of their kids due to bathtub pictures. so roll the dice and see what happens.

so no sex act makes it not child porn? err..no.

Yes people have lost custody of the kids due to bathtub pictures. wich i find fucking insane. But knowing its a rare possibility now there is no way in hell i would take such a picture.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

??? so you are at a dance with your date and she lets you put your hand down the front of her pants, thats not a sex act? what else would it be, looking for her keys?

lets reverse it. the girl has her hands down the front of his pants.

How about all of these movies with teens completely covered up but in bed with an implied sex act. Is that child porn?

What if I snapped a picture of two teenagers having sex under a blanket, but all you could see was their feet and the rest is covered? Is that child porn?

What if, at the exact moment the picture was snapped, his finger wasn't inside her? Is it still child pornography?

What if he was just pressing his hand against her panties and nothing was inside at all? I used to do that type of shit with girls...

What constitutes a sex act? Is grinding each other on the dance floor, although still clothed, a sex act?

 

[VirtualLarry]

I say, screw the school. Charge THEM. Not the students that recieved the yearbook. In fact, if they used a web-based publisher, if they transmitted the photo over state lines, get the feds involved. Investigate the publisher, charge them, charge everyone in the school involved with this. Make it front-page headlines across the nation.

Then perhaps, people will stand up and take notice, and realize what kind of stupid jurisprudence is going on these days, and possibly, reverse it.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

so no sex act makes it not child porn? err..no.

Yes people have lost custody of the kids due to bathtub pictures. wich i find fucking insane. But knowing its a rare possibility now there is no way in hell i would take such a picture.

When I was 18 I developed photos for a chain store. We had guidelines for this. A few pictures of a child bathing mixed into a roll of film isn't a huge deal. Entire rolls of film with kids bathing, or clearly focusing on genitals while bathing, that type of stuff got customers into trouble.

It is pretty easy to take pictures of your kids having fun in the bath without getting genitals or anything else.

 

[OutHouse]

How about all of these movies with teens completely covered up but in bed with an implied sex act. Is that child porn?

What if I snapped a picture of two teenagers having sex under a blanket, but all you could see was their feet and the rest is covered? Is that child porn?

What if, at the exact moment the picture was snapped, his finger wasn't inside her? Is it still child pornography?

What if he was just pressing his hand against her panties and nothing was inside at all? I used to do that type of shit with girls...

What constitutes a sex act? Is grinding each other on the dance floor, although still clothed, a sex act?

Read the law yourself. http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/PageServlet?PageId=1504

 

[Farmer]

I say, screw the school. Charge THEM. Not the students that recieved the yearbook. In fact, if they used a web-based publisher, if they transmitted the photo over state lines, get the feds involved. Investigate the publisher, charge them, charge everyone in the school involved with this. Make it front-page headlines across the nation.

Then perhaps, people will stand up and take notice, and realize what kind of stupid jurisprudence is going on these days, and possibly, reverse it.

Hell yeah! Just send the whole school, staff, faculty, gym teachers, the whole lot, to federal prison!

 

[edro]

I say, screw the school. Charge THEM. Not the students that recieved the yearbook. In fact, if they used a web-based publisher, if they transmitted the photo over state lines, get the feds involved. Investigate the publisher, charge them, charge everyone in the school involved with this. Make it front-page headlines across the nation.

Then perhaps, people will stand up and take notice, and realize what kind of stupid jurisprudence is going on these days, and possibly, reverse it.

Right! Crazy examples need to be made.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

Read the law yourself. http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/PageServlet?PageId=1504

Well, we need to discuss what sexually explicit conduct is. Not by any stretch of the imagination is a hand up a skirt ANY of these things.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/718/usc_sec_18_00002256----000-.html


(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), “sexually explicit conduct” means actual or simulated—
(i) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;
(ii) bestiality;
(iii) masturbation;
(iv) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(v) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;

(B) For purposes of subsection 8(B) [1] of this section, “sexually explicit conduct” means—
(i) graphic sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex, or lascivious simulated sexual intercourse where the genitals, breast, or pubic area of any person is exhibited;
(ii) graphic or lascivious simulated;
(I) bestiality;
(II) masturbation; or
(III) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(iii) graphic or simulated lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;

Edit:

And just to clarify, "graphic" means

(10) “graphic”, when used with respect to a depiction of sexually explicit conduct, means that a viewer can observe any part of the genitals or pubic area of any depicted person or animal during any part of the time that the sexually explicit conduct is being depicted;

In the photo could you see any of her genitals or pubic area?

 

[OutHouse]

When I was 18 I developed photos for a chain store. We had guidelines for this. A few pictures of a child bathing mixed into a roll of film isn't a huge deal. Entire rolls of film with kids bathing, or clearly focusing on genitals while bathing, that type of stuff got customers into trouble.

It is pretty easy to take pictures of your kids having fun in the bath without getting genitals or anything else.

How long ago? Stores like walmart want nothing to do with having their employees make the decision.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

How long ago? Stores like walmart want nothing to do with having their employees make the decision.

About ten years ago.

Edit: And one other thing...this was a Wal-Mart owned store. And they did want us making that determination, as well as determining what was appropriate to print and not printing images of nudity. Do you speak from experience as a Wal-Mart manager, employee, lawyer...or do you just make statements with no actual knowledge to back it up? I ask this because you were clearly wrong about the child pornography law as it pertains to a photo with a hand up a skirt. See above posts.

You seem like a person who won't admit when they are wrong so I don't actually expect you to acknowledge you were wrong.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Speaking of photo processing, is it true that all of those photo-processing computer kiosks that people use, that they store all photos processed, indefinately? (Along with, of course, the person's phone number and any other personal information that the store may have on that person.)

 

[waggy]

question.

what if someone got the book. moved out of state right after. Can they get charged with transporting child porn across state lines? what if the school sent the year book to someone who moved? can they get sent with sending child porn (both of wich i think are harder felony's?)

since the cops are so gung ho to charge people with child porn.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

question.

what if someone got the book. moved out of state right after. Can they get charged with transporting child porn across state lines? what if the school sent the year book to someone who moved? can they get sent with sending child porn (both of wich i think are harder felony's?)

since the cops are so gung ho to charge people with child porn.

No, they cannot, since it is NOT child pornography as pointed out. For it to be child pornography it must contain sexually explicit conduct. As pointed out above by the legal definition of sexually explicit conduct, this was NOT sexually explicit.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

Speaking of photo processing, is it true that all of those photo-processing computer kiosks that people use, that they store all photos processed, indefinately? (Along with, of course, the person's phone number and any other personal information that the store may have on that person.)

Doubtful. Those kiosks have a limited amount of storage. Say they even had 2 TB drives. The average person brings in an 8 GB card...they could store 250 of those on the drive. Unless they are sending the data offsite to some warehouse...but that is really getting into conspiracy territory.

 

[waggy]

No, they cannot, since it is NOT child pornography as pointed out. For it to be child pornography it must contain sexually explicit conduct. As pointed out above by the legal definition of sexually explicit conduct, this was NOT sexually explicit.

well i will go with what the police are doing since they are that matters for now. sure you can fight it but after that your reputation is destroyed and your life savings is wipped out.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

well i will go with what the police are doing since they are that matters for now. sure you can fight it but after that your reputation is destroyed and your life savings is wipped out.

The police do not determine law or interpret it, they enforce it. Using a scare tactic doesn't mean they are in the right.

Any idiot can read the law and answer the questions:

Does the photo show graphic sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal or lascivious simulated sexual intercourse where the genitals, breast, or pubic area of any person is exhibited?
Does the photo show graphic or lascivious simulated bestiality?
Does the photo show graphic or lascivious simulated masturbation?
Does the photo show graphic or lascivious simulated sadistic or masochistic abuse?
Does the photo show graphic or lascivious simulated graphic or simulated lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person?
Does the photo show and part of the genitals or pubic area?

I'm sorry, but a photo of a hand up a skirt is NOT child porn. Why? Because it does not show anything sexually explicit as defined by the law. End of story. Everyone screaming that "well, it kinda is" needs to concede that it is not child porn by answering the questions above.

 

[waggy]

and all of that don't matter once you are arrested now does it?
you will still be out money and reputation. Now i am not saying they will get found guilty. but they can get arrested and charged.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

and all of that don't matter once you are arrested now does it?
you will still be out money and reputation. Now i am not saying they will get found guilty. but they can get arrested and charged.

Yes, they can be. The cops can arrest you and charge you for anything. But we do have laws to protect us against things like that. To arrest me they would need to get a search warrant and the prosecutor to sign off on it. Defamation of character? I can see someone getting RICH off of something like this.

I do agree it *could* hurt reputation (of course you will be compensated...) because "MAN ARRESTED FOR CHILD PORN" makes front page news, and "D.A. DROPS CHILD PORN CASE BECAUSE COPS ARE INCOMPETENT BACKWOODS MORONS" usually makes a small blurb buried on the last page of the local section.

 

[OutHouse]

About ten years ago.

Edit: And one other thing...this was a Wal-Mart owned store. And they did want us making that determination, as well as determining what was appropriate to print and not printing images of nudity. Do you speak from experience as a Wal-Mart manager, employee, lawyer...or do you just make statements with no actual knowledge to back it up? I ask this because you were clearly wrong about the child pornography law as it pertains to a photo with a hand up a skirt. See above posts.

You seem like a person who won't admit when they are wrong so I don't actually expect you to acknowledge you were wrong.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3290445.../parents-sue-walmart-over-kids-bath-pictures/

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=324807

 

[OutHouse]

The police do not determine law or interpret it, they enforce it. Using a scare tactic doesn't mean they are in the right.

Any idiot can read the law and answer the questions:

Does the photo show graphic sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal or lascivious simulated sexual intercourse where the genitals, breast, or pubic area of any person is exhibited?
Does the photo show graphic or lascivious simulated bestiality?
Does the photo show graphic or lascivious simulated masturbation?
Does the photo show graphic or lascivious simulated sadistic or masochistic abuse?
Does the photo show graphic or lascivious simulated graphic or simulated lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person?
Does the photo show and part of the genitals or pubic area?

I'm sorry, but a photo of a hand up a skirt is NOT child porn. Why? Because it does not show anything sexually explicit as defined by the law. End of story. Everyone screaming that "well, it kinda is" needs to concede that it is not child porn by answering the questions above.

Yea good luck with that. If you want to ruin your life go for it.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3290445.../parents-sue-walmart-over-kids-bath-pictures/

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=324807

The person did exactly as Wal-Mart policy calls for. Wal-Mart handed the photos over to the police. Wal-Mart really did nothing wrong. That has nothing to do with my post, which is that the photo developers are supposed to determine what is appropriate to print and notify supervisors of pics of naked kids.

I notice that you have not yet responded to my other posts. Are you telling me that a photo depicting a hand up a skirt is sexually explicit and graphic as defined by the law?