A question

I wonder about this.

A girl takes a series of naked photos of herself while she is under the age of 18 and maturing to 18. When she becomes 18 she then sells the photos with the set of her over 18 shots. I wonder what the legal side of that would be. C>P is about abuse and taking advantage of C h i l dren. If the girl is the only one with the photos while she is a chil d and the photos only come to light after she is 18 and with her consent I wonder how that works?

Would she be the person charged for C>P? She is the one supplying the photos.

I wonder with these teen models if that is what is happening. When they turn 18 the net will be flooded with earlier photos of them growing to 18.


Mad

I do believe if the photos are of a nude girl under 18 then they are illegal in the USA no matter who took the photos or who owns them or who gave consent, and even if the model is now over 18.

Wow! These words were just censored from my reply:

u n d e r 1 8
i l l e g a l

I wasn't trying to be a freak here!

I read recently of a case here in the U.S. where a girl was actually indicted on c>p production charges for taking nude pix of herself.
She was 14 or 15, so wouldn't have to bear the brunt of that "sex criminal" stigma on her record for the rest of her life, being tried as a minor in juvenile courts.
I imagine if she were to have waited until she was 18 to distribute them, she would have been tried, as an adult of course, incarcerated, AND wherever she lived once released would have to go around the neighborhood telling everyone she is a sex criminal as is required per Megan's Law (a VERY well-intended response to a VERY evil deed, but which has been COMPLETELY misconstrued, distorted and abused).
Anyway, if this doesn't reflect the insanity of our current "moral climate" I dunno what does.

Thanks God I'm living in EU!

Actually, from my understanding it's perfectly fine to possess images of yourself at any age provided they are only for your personal use. The reason she would have been indicted was likely for distributing them. In order for other's to view your photos you need to be over 18 when the images were produced. Atleast this is according to some states only, the age varies wildly from state to state and country to country all around the world, but I think 18 is the safety zone for most legal systems.
I'm not an expert though, so don't take my word for it...this is just what I've picked up in bits and pieces over the years.

i hear ya my friend but the bottom line is this:

we're talking about arresting someone for distributing pictures of themselves.

in a country where the laws are supposed to protect the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, to serve and protect the people, arresting someone (intervening on those rights) for something that could not possibly have cause harm to another individual (so intervening on those rights when no one else's right to the same are in jeopardy; the only time when a democratic, freedom-defending government should do so) is profanity and hypocricy of the highest order.

I hear ya Elf. We live in a country where, if it suites the other person, they attack. Full force. Sue, sue, ruin, chaos, ha ha, I am king. It's litterally a dog-eat-dog world.

Here is what I have found.

The pushers, in general (that means pushing of anything illegal) tends to get off easy, but the 'user' is the one that gets the short end of the stick.

The only difference is, the richer you are, the more you can get away with. Did someone say OJ!?!

elf_punk wrote:

So the law here in the US basically implies that I could get in deep shit for sending people naked baby pictures of myself? In all honesty, I think we are missing a part of the equation here. I would most likely have to be selling the pictures and there would probably have to be some soccer mom somewhere that got angry because her kid enjoyed whacking off to them. But otherwise, the law really does step all over itself on this one.

Snigom wrote:

Now it remains to be seen if this holds true for Michael Jackson.

Super Pornicator wrote:

It will, oh yes, it will....

but on that, i gotta say, as much of a freak as i -- and most other sane people -- find him to be, i do not think he is guilty; at least not of what he's been charged with....

i think if anything the man is asexual and honestly so mentally undeveloped in the human relationship department that it really was just two k i d s sharing a bed -- and in all the same way two k i d s would -- no lude acts or anything...

but that is just my opinion, and i do see how in today's climate that would be enough to take someone out on a rail...

elf_punk wrote:

True that. I don't think he's guilty either. With the shear number of **** he's always had sleeping over, I think its just so much more likely that a few decided to cash in on him. If he really were doing anything really wrong, I think it would have come around to bite him much earlier, but who knows, I'm probably biased because the man can dance and because I think he so obviously just needs some therapy. Between him and OJ, however, I think Michael actually deserves to get off clean.

Guilty or not guilty.

The only thing that I would like to know is where has all his money gone???

I wonder if he has jut run out of money because he has had to pay off all the parents and now there is not enough money go around.

Now the question, you found out that Wacko Jacko got your little lad to tug him off. His lawyers drops a big wad of paper for you to sign and a nice big $5M cheque to pay for his collage and up brining. O yes and your silence forever. Now how many parents would take the money and go for the better life?

Look at the type of K I Ds he goes after. He doesn’t go after the rich ones. They are more likely to say no. The poor ones are cheaper. (now that is sad thing)

But every now and then someone say no to this and when money cannot buy the silence he falls in the shit. Ditto……

Everyone has a price and if you have a lot of money you can buy a lot of nice things.

Guilty as charged!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now hasn't this thread stated a good conversation.

Mad

Back to the topic at hand, I learned this in a class at college:

HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION:

I am a f ifteen year old living in the US, I am dating a f ifteen year old girl. We have sex. We take pictures and/or videotape ourselves. Whether we distribute them or not, (for the sake of this point, let's say we do not, under any circumstances distribute them), by US law, we are in posession of **** pornography. Her mom finds the pics, it's my camera, I am arrested, maybe both of us. The US does not even need parents' consent/support to prosecute. Or, let's say perhaps I simply like viewing nude pics of myself. I take them, they are found by someone who reports me. I am arrested for, not distributing, but simply having nude pics of my u derage self.

The professor of my class quoted two examples of the former example occurring. Scary. No digital camera for my son until he's 18.

Wow,

soon we will have to ban mirrors.

A fou r teen year old boy was caught standing naked in front of a mirror. He was charged with watching C>P. Now that would be a world gone wrong.

Or mother lets her fou r year old play down the beach with nothing on. She is arrested for supplying C>P and the authorities take away her siblings.

New headlines to hit the papers.

Mad