Well, Genarlow Wilson should have taught us all that its not intent that counts, but the LETTER of the law, people! Stupid of them not to be lawyers and know all the hypocrital intricacies of some of their laws!

I don’t see any problem with the law.

The age of consent is as low as 14 in Canada and some USA states. While two 14 year olds could have sex, they can not take pictures or video (Even for legitimate personal use only). These laws exists simply to prevent the production and distribution of what most people consider child pornography.

Colorado: The unfettered age of consent in Colorado is 17, however there exist in the legislation close in age exceptions which allow those at least 15 and less than 17 to engage in acts with those less than ten years older.

Being 21, I can go down to the local highschool woo a girl into becoming my girlfriend and legally have sex with her.

Besides, the real thing is MUCH better than any picture.

These laws exists simply to prevent the production and distribution of what most people consider child pornography.

At first I thought they were stupid charges against these kids but after reading Moloch’s LONG (for him) post, I’m gonna do something I never thought I would - I’m gonna admit he showed me another way to look at this.
Good call, Moloch - something tells me I’ll never fuck a 17 year old again but I recall what they looked like.

I stood beside Chloe and had a beer or two in the downstairs bar before I went overseas nearly 4 decades ago.
From memory the painting is near enough to ‘life size’ and since 1908 the wowsers were never able to remove her.
She’d not have survived in AmeriKa.

The painting was damaged in 1943 by an American serviceman who threw a glass of beer at it.

A wowser is… a person who is more shocked at seeing two inches of underskirt than he would be at seeing a mountain of misery.
Or
A wowser is [a] simple, satisfying, succinct, single word which aptly distinguishes the whole race of windy. watery, cantankerous, snuffling Chadbands [sic?], Stinggingses [sic?], Holy Joes and Scripture-spouting sneaks, hypocritical humbugs, and unctuous, dirty-minded rotters, who spend their time interfering with the healthy instincts and recreations of healthy-minded, honest humanity.

I can’t agree with the court’s judgement on this issue. While the ruling is stupid, its not entirely unwise. I have to admit that the court had a point in that, were the images to have been reproduced and or distributed, any unknowing recipient could have been prosecuted under the law. Granted, that’s something of an obscure notion, but look at what happened with Traci Lords. She was a willing participant who not only allowed herself to be photographed underage, but she provided them with fake identification to do so. Were they liable? I don’t think so, but the courts disagreed and the people involved were prosecuted. They may have done nothing wrong, but the false accusation of owning child pornography is as bad wrongful rape accusation. Its doesn’t matter whether or not the individual involved was guilty or not, the court of public opinion finds the fault in the accused, even if they’re the victim. So while I agree that the charges were unnecessary and a better solution could have been found such as destroying the images and counseling, a judgement of some kind was necessary.

Well, I think this just points out some of the problems with child porn laws.  Child abuse is child abuse and already illegal under other laws, and in the rare cases (like this one) where no child abuse is taking place, what exactly is the problem?  That someone somewhere might get a boner?

And failing to distinguish between children and adolescents legally defined as minors is unconscionable.  This was not a 10 year old.  There may or may not be some good reasons to keep teens in some kind of legal limbo and deny them full rights to decide who they want to have sex with, but confusing them with actual children is idiotic or dishonest.

Sheesh:  Some people’s priorities…

Reminds me of the old joke:  Why don’t Baptists have sex standing up?  Because it might lead to dancing.

This is just too fucking stupid for for me. A person over the age of 21 can stand naked in front of a mirror and take thier own picture. But a 16 year old would be committing a crime.

I would be more interested in the legal disposition, and the overall security issue of who hacked the computers. Stoopid Stoopid Stoopid.

Good job Judge Fuck.

This problem came up in my Digital Forensics class, and the answer is, “There is no answer”.  Unfortunately the laws are still lacking in definitions of terms, and judges and prosecutors are still lacking in understanding of computer issues.

Yes there is a risk that a computer could be hacked, but this risk is not worth sending someone to jail for, or even fining them.  Not unless there was a clear case of them making child pornography with intent to distribute.  And I hardly see having some pictures of sexual acts to be intent to distribute.

But I think this stems from the issue that most states see having more than 3 pictures of child pornography to be beyond an accident.  And they kinda extrapolated this to these two individuals.  They had more than three pictures so obviously they had intent to distribute?  Whatever…

The very idea of an American court claiming the authority to punish a person, however old, for taking pictures of their own bodies makes me sick enough to throw up all over the faces of those judges.  How warped this “freedom” of ours has become! 
Two minors, photographing themselves, no intentional distribution, no exploitation by adults.  How exactly does that make anyone a pornographer except in the sick, twisted minds of the ever present anti-sex crowd?  Isn’t anyone else sick to death of this “for your own good” legislation? 
In my perfect fantasy world, the police who investigated and arrested, the D.A., and the two overzealous judges should do 20 or 30 years each, since they are the only ones who see it as child porn, and they are the only ones exploiting, enjoying, or benefiting from the whole event. 17 year-olds having sex is not evil or disgusting in the least.  Grown men in positions of authority thinking that they have any business or right to get involved, now that is disgusting!

Yet another example of the necessity of keeping church and state absolutely separate.

SS, where did the church enter the fray? It’s just another example of thought crime taken to absurdity.

The verdict may follow the letter of law, but the dissenting opinion has it right.

So I wonder about the legality of a 15 year old who is suspect of a wart on his/her ass.

He/She takes a picture of it with a camera phone, sends that picture to their computer so they can enlarge it, and forward that to their physician.

Legal or Illegal ?

SS, where did the church enter the fray?

It didn’t, but Sadie likes to toss that into nearly every discussion if LJ hasn’t beaten her to the punch.

The problem here is not the courts, the judges ruled as they should have.  If you don’t like the outcome, criticize the writers of the law. Personally, I think that creating an exception to the law to allow what would be child pornography in the hands of an adult to be perfectly acceptable in the hands of a minor.

If you create an exception for Little Johnny to film his underage girlfriend you create a workaround for the perv.  Get little Johnny to film little Jane and simply access the child pornography via little Johnny’s computer.  I know its a stretch, because all seventeen year old boys are such wonderful decision makers and are oh so discrete.

This

Personally, I think that creating an exception to the law to allow what would be child pornography in the hands of an adult to be perfectly acceptable in the hands of a minor.

should read:

Personally, I think that creating an exception to the law to allow what would be child pornography in the hands of an adult to be perfectly acceptable in the hands of a minor would be a mistake.

Consie, you’re a legal guy, you should know that the Judge is just flat out wrong on this one. Forget the morality at look at this statement…

Wolf speculated that Amber and Jeremy could have ended up selling the photos to child pornographers ("one motive for revealing the photos is profit") or showing the images to their friends. He claimed that Amber had neither the “foresight or maturity” to make a reasonable estimation of the risks on her own. And he said that transferring the images from a digital camera to a PC created innumerable problems: “The two computers (can) be hacked.”

That’s basing a judicial decision on a crime that “might” happen. No different that sending a gun owner to jail because he “might” get angry and shoot someone.

...or showing the images to their friends.

And how horrible that would be!

And he said that transferring the images from a digital camera to a PC created innumerable problems: “The two computers (can) be hacked.”

KPG is right. This is undoubtably the most feeble line of “reasoning” in this entire debacle of a decision. The second that people are breaking the law for crimes that “might” occur is the second we cease to live in a free country.

If you create an exception for Little Johnny to film his underage girlfriend you create a workaround for the perv. 

Consi, Laws will never be perfect. Thats why you should stick to as few laws as reasonably possible (that my libertarian view, and damn isn’t THAT world view successful - heck, I don’t follow it myself all the time).

A law such as this which makes it illegal to have porn of your own self at under-age will hurt innocent people 9 times out of 10 (and you should realize that kids of 14 having sex is not all tthat rare anymore, if it ever was). 1 time out of 10, it will hit somebody who SHOULD be hit with it.

But why make such a law in the first place? Its not as if child pornographers were that hard to convict in the first place, once you catch them. By adding such a law such as this, you only create more buereaucratic laws liable to snag the wrong people.

CONSI: Sadie likes to toss that into nearly every discussion if LJ hasn’t beaten her to the punch

Me!? What the fuck did I do?
Me and the Moloch are the only bastards agreeing with you and the courts.
I’ve been reading all the comments that disagree with me and I wish I hadn’t said a thing and then you come along and give me grief, by association, about something I never did.
No! No! NO! Don’t go giving me no apologies, man. It’s too late. You’ve burnt your cake and I ate the fucking fucker.
I mean, like, here I am ... I mean, I’m just sitting here, on the Group W bench (ref: Alice’s Restaurant*** - remember Alice?), on the other side of the world and some bastard, not just any rotten bastard, a fucking North American bastard, rips into me, for what?
Fucking nothing that’s what.
Drag my good name through the mud ... mumble fuck mumble fuck mumble fuck mumble fuck.
Well, fuck you.
I feel better now.

***Alice’s Restaurant - there’s nothing to look at on the YouTube - Putcha feet up and listen to it with stoned ears ... pretend you’re in the middle of a war taking place in Vietnam in 1970.
I’ve been crackin’ a grin over this for almost 40 years - hopefully I can continue to do so for another 40.

It is insane to prosecute somebody because they migth commit a crime, or because they computers migth be hacked and the information will go worlwide, you cannot acuse somenbody for something that might happen in the future, or now the judges will support their decisons on psychics that guess the future.
jajajaja only in the U. S. A.

Ramses said: It is insane to prosecute somebody because they migth commit a crime

I let this slide when KPG was talking about crimes that might be committed.  I need to set folks straight though.  Nobody was prosecuted for anything they might do.  They were prosecuted for what they did do. 

So, to review, nobody was prosecuted for a crime that might happen.  They were prosecuted for an act that was on the books as being criminal. When law enforcement discovered evidence of the criminal act, law enforcement did what law enforcement does, they prosecuted the offenders.  Subsequently the law on the books making the actions illegal was challenged because there was no denying the act took place and as it stood, there was a crime.  Defense lawyers will do what they can do and this one did.  Once the law was challenged as unconstitutional, the court upheld the law utilizing a rational review.  In doing so, the court found the law to have at least one rational reason supporting it.

Oh, and about this:

Well, fuck you.

I didn’t know you cared so much mate.

I didn’t know you cared so much mate.

I came back the same day ... you took two weeks.
I know who cares ... you don’t even buy me flowers anymore. 

So, to review, nobody was prosecuted for a crime that might happen.  They were prosecuted for an act that was on the books as being criminal. When law enforcement discovered evidence of the criminal act, law enforcement did what law enforcement does, they prosecuted the offenders.

Be that as it may, the entire law is built around the supposition that a crime could be committed. Why is it illegal to take the picture in the first place? Setting aside whatever moral qualms people may have against photographing a sixteen-year-old sexually, the basis of the law is anticipatory of a future inappropriate act involving said sixteen-year-old that has not as yet been committed by anyone. As far as a sound basis for a law goes, in my opinion this one is pretty flawed, especially since nothing non-consensual occurred.

Be that as it may, the entire law is built around the supposition that a crime could be committed.

It is not Sadie.  The state defined what the law was.  The act filmed was in contravention of the law.

You are mixing the rationale that the Court employed in its rational review of the statute with the law.  Making that distinction is importatn to understanding why in my considered opinion, the Court did exactly what the Court was supposed to do. 

You are quite free, and have every right, to question the basis for the law and whether there should have been exemptions for this type of situation.  However, that doesn’t make the crime at issue one that is based on a speculative act.  It simply means you don’t like the law.

Why is it illegal to take the picture in the first place? Setting aside whatever moral qualms people may have against photographing a sixteen-year-old sexually…

That’s a sweet setup.  If we set aside moral qualms people have about anything, then we can directly question and ridicule almost all the laws on the books.  Why for example shouldn’t we be able to kill off asshats, setting aside the moral qualms that people have about killing?  Nice.

Debating the age of consent is a legitimate discussion.  Eliminating the moral basis for the concerns about whether a (fill in the blank) old is capable of consent improperly frames the discussion.

As a smut peddler I have to say the court is right. The law is the law and underage sex on film is against the law. How hard do you think I would have press this kid to give me the movies, photos whatever? Not hard at all, all I would have to do is give him five or six thousand and I bet I could get them too quick. Also don’t forget that he doesn’t own the computer his parents do, so what would you say if his dad got charged with having child porn for what his son put on there? The law makes no distinction for intent it just says none under 18 can be filmed engaged in sex.