Child porn laws are vague because the definition of porn is vague. Most prosecutors are not going to go after parents taking bath tub photos, but because the perverts are sneaky the laws have to cover a broad definition. Nudity and pornography are not necessarily the same thing, it is the intent of the photo that becomes a problem. I think Tan's photos are nice, and I doubt that any thinking person would have complaint, although there are always those people who find perversion in the innocent - and that is why we have to protect them (the innocent, that is).
David Madsen mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.davidmadsen.com -----Original Message----- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 12, 2004 10:19 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: a little something i've been working on... I keep forgetting that your statutes are mostly administered by the individual states. If your kiddie porn laws are anything like ours, the kiddie in the bathtub might well cross the line. Our law doesn't even require nudity. All that is required under Canadian law is for the subject to appear to be under the age of eighteen, and be in a pose that may be of a sexual nature. It's a pretty broad definition, since there is really no definition at all. It makes going after child pornographers the legal equivalent of drift net fishing. You may catch what you want, but you are going to hurt a lot of innocent parties doing it. William Robb ----- Original Message ----- From: "Shel Belinkoff" Subject: Re: a little something i've been working on. > Bill, > > There are so many jurisdictions, and so many variations on > "the law" that it would be impossible to quote anything. > Most of what I've read about and seen deals with subjective > interpretation of what constitutes pornography. My comment > to Tanya was made because recently a couple was prosecuted > in (maybe) Florida because the photo lab they brought their > film to turned them in to authorities because the lab people > thought the pics were porn. The photos were of the couple's > child taking a bath. I honestly don't recall the outcome, > although I do believe the child was taken from the parents > pending the outcome of an investigation. There are more > details, of course.
