Letters posted here are associated with the following Salon Premium Member:
Published Letters: 716
Editor's Choice: 9
jebldmm- With just the description of the pictures he did not break any laws dealing with child porn. A picture of a naked minor by itself is protected speech that does not fall under child porn exceptions, there needs to be a clear sexual component. Again going by the available description the full frontal shot is clearly falls on protected speech, the second picture while much more suggestive I have a hard time seeing how this crosses the line from protected speech.
Whispers- That might not be her intent for him to distribute the pictures but that does not make it illegal. If the pictures do cross the line of protected speech it is the girl that sexual exploited a minor, trafficked child porn, and several other laws.
If the girl does not want the pictures to be posted she has tort remedies. She can sue him for misusing her copyrighted work.
Amerigo- Excellent point. This is one of the most serious issues in criminal justice. It is a nice legal fiction that these over charging do not lead to innocent people pleading guilty but in a case like this his PD would be crazy to advise him not to take any deal that does not put him on a sex offender list even if he has to do significant jail time.
Here is Wisconsin's legal defination of explict material
Sexually explicit conduct means actual or simulated: (a) Sexual intercourse, meaning vulvar
penetration as well as cunnilingus, fellatio, or anal intercourse between persons or any other
intrusion, however slight, of any part of a person's body or of any object into the genital or anal
opening either by a person or upon the person's instruction. The emission of semen is not required;
(b) Bestiality; (c) Masturbation; (d) Sexual sadism or sexual masochistic abuse including, but not
limited to, flagellation, torture or bondage; or (e) Lewd exhibition of intimate parts.
It basically comes down to this. If she was touching herself she should be charged with the same sex crimes as this asshole is. If she was not touching herself the police and DA are trying to violate all of ours first amendment rights.
If Webb was on the winning ticket as VP he would be replaced by a D Governor.
About 90 percent of the Hillary Clinton supporters that say they will vote for McCain in the fall are the same ones that have voted mostly for Republicans since 1964. These are not votes that went to Kerry, Gore or even Bill Clinton that Obama can not get. Hillary (who i would have an very hard time marking on a ballet) might be able to make inroads with this group but I have my doubts.
You might not see why pictures of her genitalia could not be sexual but the law is very specific that alone is not sexual. Again the law makes no exceptions for an otherwise legal photo that has a raunchy caption. The law is very clear that at a minimum she has to have her hand near her genitalia in a way that it is clear she is in a sex act.
If you laugh and joke about prison rape you are sick. Close to a 3rd of all rapes in the US are prison rapes and the victims of these rapes are not for the most part the most evil but to those that are in prison for non-violent crimes. If being an asshole deserves rape, does that mean women that wear a dress a little too short deserve to be rape too?
From the description of the pictures this asshole did nothing at all illegal. The cops arresting and charging this asshole are a violation of his rights and what is more scary the police harassed and imprisoned an innocent kid because they did not like a citizen asserting his first amendment rights. I sure hope that the ACLU or some other lawyer with a strong belief in civil liberates comes to his defense.
Calling this kid a pedophile is overstating the situation about a million fold. Pedophilia is an attraction to prepubescent children by adults. In this case the girl was 16 and he was 17 and they where in a legal and normal relationship for that age. I am very uncomfortable even suggesting that a 16 year old girl is so naive of judgement that it has to be a crime for a 17 year old boy to ask her for a nude picture. Not, that this happiened in the case, she could have easily decided on her own to send him these pics on her own.