Difference between revisions of "User talk:Polo sensei"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Polo sensei (talk | contribs) (→GNU General Public License: new section) |
Polo sensei (talk | contribs) (→Real-life Examples of Governmental Tyranny: new section) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
In other words, the GPL grants the recipients of a computer program the rights of the Free Software Definition[7] and uses copyleft to ensure the freedoms are preserved whenever the work is distributed, even when the work is changed or added to. The GPL is a copyleft license, which means that derived works can only be distributed under the same license terms. This is in distinction to permissive free software licenses, of which the BSD licenses and the MIT License are the standard examples. GPL was the first copyleft license for general use. | In other words, the GPL grants the recipients of a computer program the rights of the Free Software Definition[7] and uses copyleft to ensure the freedoms are preserved whenever the work is distributed, even when the work is changed or added to. The GPL is a copyleft license, which means that derived works can only be distributed under the same license terms. This is in distinction to permissive free software licenses, of which the BSD licenses and the MIT License are the standard examples. GPL was the first copyleft license for general use. | ||
== Real-life Examples of Governmental Tyranny == | |||
Real-life Examples of Governmental Tyranny | |||
Here we give specific, documented examples of tyrannical applications of various anti-child pornography laws. | |||
Teens arrested for taking naked pictures of themselves (USA, Australia, and elsewhere) | |||
As part of the ever-escalating program of brutal suppression of adolescent sexuality, police and prosecutors show no leniency for teenage girls and boys who take photographs of themselves that violate the very restrictive laws governing their countries, regions, and states. They arrest these teenagers and put them through the same legal processes as adults face when they take "illegal" pictures of teenagers. But this process causes embarrassment to the teens, as well as a detriment to their futures if they lose the legal case and get a permanent criminal record. How does that help anyone? Let's ask: Does a 17 year old posing nude or masturbating cause abuse and psychological harm to herself? Even if she showed the images to another person, even if that person was an older man, where is the proof that she is harmed by their distribution? Could it be that it's the legal system, acting in concert with prudish societal attitudes, that actually causes the harm? Why, in some places, can someone have sex with the 17 year old but not see a nude picture of her? | |||
A prominent American example is the case in 2006 involving a 16-year-old Rhode Island girl who posed naked in two pictures with her 19-year-old friend. North Smithfield Captain Denis Smith described their poses as "a very compromising position in which neither party had clothes on." His police force considers the images to be sexual in nature. The girls evidently violated Rhode Island state law, and both were arrested. Another 16-year-old girl, who helped the two teens with the photography and with uploading the photos onto MySpace.com, was charged with a count of conspiracy to help distribute child pornography. | |||
Michael J. Healey, spokesman for the Attorney General's office, said that the law considers the photographs illegal child pornography regardless of who took them. Expressing a disgusting prediction that more teens will get arrested for photographing themselves nude, Healey said: "But unfortunately, given the explosion in popularity of MySpace.com and these sites, we're going to see more cases like this as we move along." The Attorney General himself, Patrick Lynch, called this case "almost a study in stupidity". Actually, we think it's the law that's stupid. | |||
In an earlier case of this nature, in the spring of 2004, a 15 year old Pennsylvania girl was arrested and charged under Pennsylvania state law with "sexual abuse of children", "possession of child pornography", and "dissemination of child pornography" for having taken photographs of herself nude and masturbating and distributing these photographs to men using Internet chat rooms. | |||
Another case took place in the summer of 2004 in Roanoke, Virginia when, as Judy Jackson and Debbie Nathan explain, "two 16-year-old girls were charged with producing and disseminating child pornography after they photographed themselves topless, then gave the pictures to their high school boyfriends, who posted them on the Internet." | |||
In October 2008 a 15-year-old girl in Newark, Ohio was arrested for using her cell phone to take nude self-portraits of herself and for sending them to other students in her high school. She was charged with two felonies: illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material and possession of criminal tools. In the previous month, officials at Licking Valley High School had warned her to stop taking nudes of herself. Starting in April 2008 the prosecutor, Ken Oswalt, had given lectures at her school and other high schools in Licking County on the subject of nude photos of minors, because he had been receiving tips about an increasing number of minors making and storing such images. Oswalt attempted to justify his anti-youth-porn stance in an interview with ABCNews.com: "There's a totally false perception among juveniles that there is no risk to this. That picture, once taken and sent, gives anyone who receives it the ability to do anything with it, forever. If a picture of you found its way onto the Internet, that's going to haunt you, potentially forever." But every sane person knows that a felony conviction can haunt a teen forever too. The girl pleaded "deny" (the juvenile court equivalent of "not guilty") to both charges, and her attorney filed a motion to dismiss, citing State v. Lucas as a precedent, arguing that a person can't simultaneously be the victim and the perpetrator. The case was not dismissed. Instead, as Martha Irvine explained in her February 4, 2009 article, she got a plea bargain: "She eventually agreed to a curfew, no cell phone and no unsupervised Internet usage over the next few months. If she complies, the charges will be dropped." | |||
In January 2009 three Greensburg, Pennsylvania adolescent girls aged 14 and 15 were charged with manufacturing, disseminating, and possessing child pornography after they used their cell phones to take semi-nude and nude self-portraits which they sent to three or four teenage boys. Captain George Seranko of the Greensburg Police Department told WPXI.com: "Taking nude pictures of yourself, nothing good can come out of it. It's very dangerous. Once it's on a cell phone, that cell phone can be put on the Internet where everyone in the world can get access to that juvenile picture." According to Martha Irvine's February 4, 2009 article, "all but one of the students accepted a lesser misdemeanor charge, partly to avoid a trial and further embarrassment, a public defender in the case said. The mother of one boy [who was charged with possessing child pornography after receiving some of these photos] is considering fighting all charges." | |||
In January 2009 three girls aged 15 and 16 who attend East Pennsboro Area High School in Pennsylvania were charged with disorderly conduct for taking nude portraits of themselves with their cell phones and sending them to their friends. But the authorities later dropped the charges, opting instead to force the girls to enter into a contract with the Youth Aid Panel, which often forces juveniles to do community service, write essays, and/or undergo counseling. If they meet the conditions of the contract, they will not have a criminal record. Dennis McMaster, the East Pennsboro Township Police Chief, said "It gave them a message that you don't do this kind of dumb stuff." | |||
In February 2009 Trooper William Mostyn of the Pennsylvania State Police, Woodland Barracks, charged a 15-year-old girl from Clearfield County, Pennsylvania with possession of child pornography, distributing child pornography, and creating child pornography because in June 2007 she made nude digital photos of herself and sent them to a 27-year-old man over MySpace. State police found the photos on the man's home computer, and learned that he and the girl had also engaged in some form of unlawful sexual activity. As a result, the man is also being criminally charged. The Clearfield County District Attorney, William A. Shaw, Jr., told the media he worries that young girls who post nude photos of themselves can be preyed upon by people who are sexually attracted to them. | |||
In March 2009 a 14-year-old girl from Clifton, New Jersey was charged with possession and distribution of child pornography as a result of using MySpace to post nude photos of herself for her boyfriend. The photos were described as "very explicit" by Passaic County Sheriff's Office spokesman Bill Maer. Her photos could be seen by the public on her MySpace profile, and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children noticed them and notified law enforcement. In June 2009 the Passaic County Prosecutor's Office said the charges will be dropped after the girl attends counseling for at least 6 months and doesn't break any other law during that period. | |||
On January 19, 2007, a state appeals court in Florida upheld, by a 2-1 margin, the conviction of a 16-year-old girl and her 17-year-old boyfriend for having made digital photographs showing themselves engaged in "sexual behavior" according to how it is defined under Florida state child porn law. The boyfriend was also charged with possessing the photos. The photos were made on March 25, 2004, solely for the teens' own private edification, as they never sent them to anyone else. The trial judge in the original court case rejected the girl's attorney's argument that they were entitled to a right to privacy as guaranteed by the Florida Constitution. After that, according to Declan McCullagh, she "pleaded no contest to the charges and was placed on probation, though she reserved her right to appeal her constitutional claim." The majority opinion laughably read, in part: "Further, if these pictures are ultimately released, future damage may be done to these minors' careers or personal lives." Yet, the District Attorney's prosecution of the teens, making their private activities publicly known and giving them a criminal record, is what really wrecked their lives. To his credit, the dissenting judge on the appeals court, Philip Padovano, agreed with the argument that the prosecution of the teens "violates the child's right to privacy under Article 1, Section 23 of the Florida Constitution." | |||
In February 2009 twenty boys and girls from Tunkhannock, Pennsylvania between the ages of 11 and 17 were threatened with charges related to child porn possession, distribution, and production, sexual abuse of children, and criminal use of a communication facility by Wyoming County District Attorney George P. Skumanick, Jr. following the discovery in October 2008 of "provocative" cell phone photos that showed minors scantily dressed and undressed. Skumanick told them and their parents that the charges would be dropped if they agreed to pay $100 to have the youngsters be indoctrinated in a 10-hour class where, among other things, they'd learn about sexual harrassment, sexual violence, "what it means to be a girl in today's society", and to "identify nontraditional societal and job roles" and they'd be forced to write that they did something "wrong". They would also get 6 months of probation and be forced into doing community service and being drug tested. Three young girls' parents refused to sign Skumanick's agreement and contacted the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Pennsylvania to fight Skumanick in federal civil court. Part of the case centres around the fact that the photos weren't actually pornographic, but merely show 13-year-olds Marissa Miller and Grace Kelly wearing opaque bras and a 16-year-old girl who just came out of the shower and is standing with a towel wrapped around her and her breasts exposed. | |||
In fact it was Skumanick's pattern to consider non-sexual photos to be illegal. Among teens whose parents agreed to the class were those whose "illegal" photos showed them fully dressed in swimsuits, tank tops, and underwear. A 17-year-old girl wrote the following comment at http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/03/25/does-teens-sending-nude-photos-of-themselves-constitute-a-crime/ "A friend of mine had 2 pictures of herself on the popular website known as MySpace, one in which she was wearing a tank top and one with her in her baithing suit. Neither of these were provacotive, and she didn’t send them to anybody. However, some other students in my school decided to send the pictures to their phones by saving it to their computer first. These phones, containing the pictures, were confescated, and my friend had to take classes and complete 15 hours of community service." At a group meeting Skumanick held with the parents on February 12, 2009 the father of a girl who had posed wearing a bathing suit asked Skumanick why he was going to prosecute his daughter and Skumanick responded it was because she was "provocatively" posed. In Dionne Searcey's April 21, 2009 article we learn Another confiscated phone had photos of a 17-year-old girl that she described in an interview as "semi-nude pictures, underwear and stuff like that." The girl, who took the photos herself, was debating whether to send them to her boyfriend when a teacher took the phone. | |||
Skumanick was quoted in Josh Mrozinski's February 28, 2009 article as saying "Our main goal in doing this [class] is to get these kids to understand the dangers and long-term ramifications of having the pictures out there." In Michael Rubinkam's March 25, 2009 article Skumanick claimed "we just wanted to protect these kids". And Skumanick told Zetter: "Once these photos are out, God only know who's going to get them." | |||
The ACLU's complaint was authored by Witold J. Walczak, Valeria A. Burch, and Seth F. Kreimer. It sought to block Skumanick from charging the teens with child porn and argued that he violated the minors' rights to free expression: "The two photographs, which depict no sexual activity or display of pubic area, are not illegal under Pennsylvania’s crimes code and, indeed, are images protected by the First Amendment." It also contended that Skumanick was violating the rights of the girls and their parents in other ways. | |||
In an interview with Kim Zetter, Walczak said child porn involves more than just toplessness: "It's not just pictures of kids that may show a little bit of flesh. It's either got to depict sexual activity or it's got to be some lascivious display. If you've just got kids standing upright outside a shower, that's not lascivious. ... If anyone needs to understand this, it's prosecutors who have this heavy hammer they can bring down on people." Skumanick, however, told Zetter "Just depicting nudity could be considered a sex act" because Pennsylvania law (18 Penn. Stat. § 6312) prohibits underage "nudity if such nudity is depicted for the purpose of sexual stimulation or gratification of any person who might view such depiction". | |||
On March 30, 2009 U.S. District Court Judge James M. Munley granted a temporary restraining order against Skumanick. Munley believed the plaintiffs would probably prevail in their lawsuit, writing: "While the court emphasizes that its view is preliminary and not intended to absolve the plaintiffs of any potential criminal liability, plaintiffs make a reasonable argument that the images presented to the court do not appear to qualify in any way as depictions of prohibited sexual acts. Even if they were such depictions, the plaintiffs argument that the evidence to this point indicates that the minor plaintiffs were not involved in disseminating the images is also a reasonable one. ... The court agrees with the plaintiffs that the public interest would be served by issuing a TRO [temporary restraining order] in this matter as the public interest is on the side of protecting constitutional rights." | |||
Afterwards, Walczak issued a statement that said, in part, "We are grateful the judge recognized that prosecuting our clients for non-sexually explicit photographs raises serious constitutional questions." | |||
On January 15, 2010 the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held a hearing to listen to the arguments on both sides of the case. Walczak reiterated that the photos are not sexually explicit, saying "We've been mystified how anyone can look at these photos as pornography. These photos are not even close calls." Attorney Michael J. Donohue, representing Skumanick, argued "When a kid disseminates a picture of themself, it puts themself and other children at risk. An image of naked children draws predators like a swamp draws mosquitoes." Donohue claimed the topless photo represents child pornography because supposedly "the transmission was for sexual gratification" of the recipient. He also claimed no minor has a First Amendment right to distribute a nude photo of herself. Wyoming County officials still wanted to charge that girl, but no longer intended to prosecute over the bra photo. Judge Thomas Ambro, one of the three judges, pointed out "If the goal is to protect children, then why threaten them with prosecution that could put a permanent blotch on them for life?" | |||
The court's written opinion, authored by Judge Ambro, was issued on March 17, 2010 and found in favour of the plaintiffs (the three mothers and their daughters). A sentence in the opinion states "We agree that an individual District Attorney may not coerce parents into permitting him to impose on their children his ideas of morality and gender roles." Another point made in the opinion is "We agree with the District Court at this preliminary stage that Nancy Doe likely can show that the education program would violate her First Amendment freedom against compelled speech." | |||
The court did not assess whether the photo of the topless girl is actually illegal, saying "we need not opine" that question, but did note "we discern no indication from this record that the District Attorney had any evidence that Doe ever possessed or distributed the photo." The opinion concludes: "At this preliminary stage we conclude that plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on their claims that any prosecution would not be based on probable cause that Doe committed a crime, but instead in retaliation for Doe’s exercise of her constitutional rights not to attend the education program. Therefore, we affirm the grant of a preliminary injunction and remand for further proceedings." | |||
Shannon Duffy's March 18, 2010 article in The Legal Intelligencer says Attorney Michael J. Donohue... who defended Skumanick's actions in the appeal... said he took "some solace" in the court's decision not to declare that teenagers have a constitutional right to send sexually explicit images to other teens. | |||
This intolerance of self-made youth porn has spread to other nations. After complaints from two "child protection" groups, Norway's Justice Minister, Odd Einar Dørum, spoke out against children and adolescents making "sexual photos" of themselves and said actions would be taken against five websites that were identified as carrying self-made underage "porn" as well as risque photos taken by friends. He said that the photos didn't have to portray sexual acts to be illegal under Norway's new law; they could still be considered illegal if the nudity is "of sexual character." | |||
Australian authorities have also charged minors who made their own pornography. In the state of Victoria, according to Nicole Brady's July 2011 article in The Age, a 17-year-old boy and 17-year-old girl made a video showing themselves having sex and sent it to friends, and subsequently both were charged with child pornography and "given formal police cautions", even though it is legal in Victoria for 17 year olds to have sex. | |||
With all this misguided energy spent on suppressing teenagers' sexuality and making them feel bad, why do these groups and police forces fail to act against the continued commercial circulation of a porn film depicting 15-year-old Candy Barr having sex (she claimed it was rape, even though most people dispute that claim), the distribution at the paysites Celebnakedness.com and Virginsfresh.com of the private hardcore sex pictures of another 15-year-old girl, Emma Lidén (she almost certainly didn't give them the permission to redistribute), and the sale of new and used copies of juvenile porn books by Larry Clark and Will McBride? | |||
Speaking of Larry Clark, his complete "Teenage Lust" series was exhibited at the Preus Museum in the city of Horten, Norway from June 2, 2007 until August 12, 2007, with curation by the art bookshop "Torpedo Kunstbokhandelen" of Oslo and collaboration from Galleri S.E. of Bergen, and it contains underage nudity of a sexual nature combined with sexual interaction. That happened AFTER Minister Dørum announced his campaign against youth porn. | |||
Why has no fuss been raised over the 2005 DVD compilation "Girl Meets Girl Collection" from the American companies RetroSeduction Cinema and E.I. Independent Cinema? The three films on the compilation -- "Vampire Ecstasy", "Girl Meets Girl", and "Butterflies" -- all star Marie Forså before she turned 18. Most notably, "Butterflies" shows real sex involving Forså at the age of 17. While her ages and birthdate aren't mentioned, the compilation's article "Joe Sarno's German Trilogy" by Michael J. Bowen gives a rather precise chronology of when the films were shot. But Forså's birthdate is easy to locate in other sources and not in dispute. Did RetroSeduction and E.I. Independent knowingly distribute child porn or did they honestly not bother to find out whether she was of legal age? Ditto for Jean Jennings's hardcore porn film "Defiance", made when she was 17 as contemporary newspaper reports stated, but new copies are still easily available on DVD and through video-on-demand from American stores and her sex scenes are even excerpted on a 2008 DVD compilation called "Sex Slaves of Satan" that was made in the USA by VCX, based in Las Vegas, Nevada, and is sold throughout the USA. | |||
And what kind of message does it send when the mainstream film "Blame it on Rio" is sold and rented in places where it's illegal to take nude photos of minors, even of yourself? 17-year-old Michelle Johnson can take a photo of herself naked within that film, and that's supposedly okay, but the 17-year-old down the street can't do the same thing? | |||
Starting in 2009 bills were introduced in some American state legislatures (including Ohio, Utah, and Vermont) to propose reducing or removing penalties for child pornography crimes involving self-portraits. An Ohio bill would make it a misdemeanor, rather than a felony, for a juvenile to send, receive, or view such images and would eliminate the requirement that convicted teens get onto the sex offender registry. Vermont criminalises porn depicting people under age 16, and some Vermont state senators originally planned to legalise consensual porn depicting juveniles between the ages of 13 and 15. Provisions in the bill S.125 would have exempted punishment in cases where "the person is less than 19 years old, the child is at least 13 years old, and the child knowingly and voluntarily and without threat or coercion used an electronic communication device to transmit an image of himself or herself to the person." Under the bill, force, coercion, and voyeurism would still be punished as usual, as would sending images to people not originally intended to receive it. But after passing in the Senate Judiciary Committee, members of the House Judiciary Committee proposed to maintain a small form of punishment for consensual juvenile porn, suggesting a monetary fine of up to $300, but agreed not to put teens on the sex offender registry. | |||
By the end of 2010, a number of states (including Arizona, Connecticut, Nebraska, North Dakota, Utah, and Vermont) had improved their laws for juvenile self-porn. Nevada did so in 2011. | |||
Sources: "R.I. teenagers face child-porn charges" by Cynthia Needham, in The Providence Journal (March 30, 2006), http://www.projo.com/news/content/projo_20060330_wporn30.le28658.html "Porn charges for posts of herself" by SPLOID.com, http://www.sploid.com/news/2006/03/busted_on_porn.php "Girl charged with posting nude photos on Internet", in Pittsburgh Tribune-Review (March 27, 2004), http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_186625.html "Teen who posted own photo charged with child porn", in Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (March 29, 2004), http://www.post-gazette.com/breaking/20040329pornp6.asp "The Hunting of Dr. Craft" by Judy Jackson and Debbie Nathan, in The Nation (January 10, 2005), http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050110/nathan "Girl charged with sending nude photos via cell phone" by Russ Zimmer, in Newark Advocate (October 7, 2008), http://www.newarkadvocate.com/article/20081007/NEWS01/810070304 "Prosecutor: Girl ignored warning by school officials" by Russ Zimmer and Seth Roy, in Newark Advocate (October 8, 2008), http://www.newarkadvocate.com/article/20081008/NEWS01/81008025 "Teen Charged With Sending Nude Pics of Herself" by Scott Michels, ABCNews.com (October 10, 2008), http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=5995084&page=1 "High Schoolers Accused Of Sending Naked Pictures To Each Other", WPXI.com (January 13, 2009), http://www.wpxi.com/news/18469160/detail.html "3 teens avoid charges over nude photos" by Chris A. Courogen, Lara Brenckle, and Daniel Victor, in The Patriot-News, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania (January 30, 2009), http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2009/01/3_teens_avoid_charges_over_pho.html "Teens who `sext' racy photos charged with porn" by Martha Irvine, The Associated Press (February 4, 2009), http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hJmxoi-6NUpjd2smxVbaoTEy4J2wD964VRQG0 "Clearfield County DA: Juvenile Charged for Sending Nude Pictures", in Gant Daily, Clearfield, Pennsylvania (February 19, 2009), http://www.gantdaily.com/news/43/ARTICLE/44268/2009-02-19.html "NJ Teen Arrested After Posting Nude Pics" by Beth DeFalco, The Associated Press (March 26, 2009), http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/news/090326_NJ_Teen_Arrested_After_Posting_Nude_Pics "NJ girl, 14, gets probation for posting nude pics" by The Associated Press (June 23, 2009), http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090623/ap_on_re_us/us_teen_child_porn "Police blotter: Teens prosecuted for racy photos" by Declan McCullagh, CNET News.com (February 9, 2007), http://news.com.com/Police+blotter+Teens+prosecuted+for+racy+photos/2100-1030_3-6157857.html "ACLU: Clients were victims in Tunkhannock sex scandal" by Josh Mrozinski, The Scranton-Times Tribune (February 28, 2009), http://www.scrantontimes.com/articles/2009/02/28/news/sc_times_trib.20090228.a.pg6.tt28aclu_s1.2336512_loc.txt Verified Complaint, MaryJo Miller, Jami Day, and Jane Doe v. George Skumanick, Jr., United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (March 23, 2009), http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/MillerComplaintfinal.pdf "Girls threatened with porn charge sue prosecutor" by Michael Rubinkam, The Associated Press (March 25, 2009), http://www.wsbt.com/news/national/41854557.html "ACLU Sues Prosecutor Over 'Sexting' Child Porn Charges" by Kim Zetter, Wired.com (March 25, 2009), http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2009/03/aclu-sues-da-ov.html "Judge Temporarily Bars Prosecutor from Charging Teens for Child Porn Pics" by Kim Zetter, Wired.com (March 30, 2009), http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2009/03/judge-bars-da-f.html "US judge rules for teen girls in 'sexting' case" by Jon Hurdle, Reuters (March 30, 2009), http://www.reuters.com/article/mediaNews/idUSN3034377920090331 "Federal judge blocks charges in Pa. 'sexting' case" by The Associated Press (March 30, 2009), http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gIHJhCJfVsImNszbPhStlN2xDbKQD978LAP80 "Federal judge blocks teen 'sexting' charges" by Julian Sanchez, Arstechnica.com (March 31, 2009), http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/03/judge-blocks-teen-sexting-charges.ars Memorandum and Order by Judge James M. Munley, Case No. 3:09cv540, MaryJo Miller, Jami Day, and Jane Doe v. George Skumanick, Jr., United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (March 30, 2009), http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/MillerTROorder33009.pdf "Revealing Images Sent Via Cellphones Prompt District Attorney to Offer Seminars but Threaten Felony Charges" by Dionne Searcey, The Wall Street Journal (April 21, 2009), http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124026115528336397.html "Federal court in Phila. weighs ‘teen sexting’ case" by Nathan Gorenstein, Philadelphia Inquirer (January 15, 2010), http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/81726862.html "Was it goofing around or a crime? Federal appeals court hears arguments on Wyoming County “sexting” case involving girls" by Terrie Morgan-Besecker, The Times Leader, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania (January 16, 2010), http://www.timesleader.com/news/Was_it_goofing_around_or_a_crime__01-16-2010.html "Sexting, and What it Means to be a Girl" by Christopher Keelty of the ACLU of Pennsylvania (January 20, 2010), http://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/sexting-and-what-it-means-be-girl Precedential Opinion by Judge Thomas Ambro, Case No. 09-2144, MaryJo Miller, Jami Day, and Jane Doe v. Jeff Mitchell, United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (March 17, 2010), http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/092144p.pdf "3rd Circuit Bars Prosecution Threat for Teen 'Sexting'" by Shannon P. Duffy, The Legal Intelligencer (March 18, 2010), http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202446406061 "New anti-porn law hits web sites", in Aftenposten (June 20, 2005), http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1063592.ece Bill S.125, Introduced by Committee on Judiciary, The State of Vermont Legislature, posted March 20, 2009, http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/legdoc.cfm?URL=/docs/2010/bills/intro/S-125.pdf "Legislature considers legalizing teen 'sexting'" by Adam Silverman, in Burlington Free Press (April 12, 2009), http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20090412/NEWS03/90411019 "Alternative sought to Senate 'sexting' bill" by Terri Hallenbeck, in Burlington Free Press (April 18, 2009), http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20090418/NEWS03/90418002 "Ohio lawmakers don't want teens convicted of 'sexting' labeled sex offenders" by Rachel Dissell, in The Plain Dealer (April 13, 2009), http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2009/04/ohio_lawmakers_dont_want_teens.html "Connecticut bill would lessen teen 'sexting' charge" by Ros Krasny, Reuters (March 22, 2010), http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62L4VK20100322?type=technologyNews "'Sexting' Leads to Child Porn Charges for Teens" by Michelle Miller and Phil Hirschkorn, CBSNews.com (June 5, 2010), http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/06/05/eveningnews/main6552438.shtml "Sexting: A Response to Prosecuting Those Growing Up With a Growing Trend" by Jordan J. Szymialis, in Indiana Law Review, vol. 44, no. 1 (2010), http://indylaw.indiana.edu/ilr/pdf/vol44p301.pdf "Teen sexting: it's illegal, but it's in every high school" by Nicole Brady, in The Age (Melbourne, Australia) (July 10, 2011), http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/teen-sexting-its-illegal-but-its-in-every-high-school-20110709-1h85a.html | |||
The Jock Sturges case (USA) | |||
The American photographer Jock Sturges has photographed American nudist children and adolescents of both sexes in northern California to help create his portfolio. (He has also worked with undressed preteen girl models in Rhode Island.) His photographs, frequently in black-and-white, tend to be moody, thoughtful, and mysterious, rather than overtly erotic, and are usually taken outdoors, including at beaches. The photographs are intentionally natural rather than stiffly posed like in glamour photography. According to his interview with Metroactive Arts, Sturges made sure to acquaint himself deeply with the families of the subjects, as well as to constantly ask the subjects if they still enjoyed the experience and wanted to continue being photographed. | |||
The FBI raided his studio in April 1990, confiscated his photographs, and sought to charge him federally with producing child pornography. The journalist Jan Van Hove seemed to assert that the FBI only considered one photo lascivious: one showing three naked girls posing together in California in 1989. This can't be the only one as Lawrence Stanley quoted on page 20 of a 1991 article what he described as a "vicious disinformation campaign against Sturges" that they had retrieved from Sturges's home "hundreds of photos of prepubescent girls with their genitals 'vividly displayed'" as well as alleged "color slides of Sturges engaging in sex with a fifteen-year-old girl". Stanley's article did, however, disprove the allegation in relation to the colour slides, which in fact showed "a Dutch girl with her father" who weren't having sex. There are in fact a few questionable prepubescent photos with a vivid display of genitals and it might be that one of the photos the FBI had in mind was one that is displayed as the second photo in the introductory slideshow in the film "Art for Teachers of Children" where a prepubescent girl about 11 years old poses full-frontally nude with wide open legs in what could be called a lascivious pose and with her genital slit sharply seen. | |||
In a 1994 interview with David Steinberg, Sturges said "Before, I'd photograph anything. I didn't think there was anything more or less obscene about any part of the body. Now, I recognize that there are certain postures and angles that make people see red, which are evidence of original sin or something, and I avoid that." | |||
According to Sturges, the FBI agents proceeded to interview his underage female models "very, very aggressively" and to harass them (they "were bugged by the FBI in the worst imaginable way"). According to L.J. Whittemore, the agents asked them such questions as whether Sturges had touched them, whether he had posed them in a lewd manner, and whether he had ever taken them out of the sight of their parents. Sturges told Anthony Zinnanti: One girl in northern california was swimming in all her clothes when I visited her family some weeks after she had been quite brutally and invasively interviewed by two fbi agents. ... Then about 13, they had asked her questions like "has he ever made you spread your legs so that he could photograph your vagina", etc. | |||
Other artists, as well as nudists, defended Sturges's work in public. | |||
Fortunately, the grand jury that eventually heard the case dismissed all charges, and the government sent him most of his photographs back. But some of the photo negatives were in a damaged state, and the experience caused him a great deal of psychological distress, and he decided to move to Europe. (He later moved back to the United States.) According to Sturges, none of the models disliked his photographs of them or agreed with the FBI's action. | |||
Due to pressure from a Christian activist group, prosecutors in Alabama brought state charges against Barnes & Noble for carrying Jock Sturges's books and David Hamilton's books, claiming they represented "obscene material containing visual reproduction of persons under 17 years of age involved in obscene acts." | |||
It is interesting to note that Sturges took photographs of teenage girls in northern California again in the year 2002; Arianne and Allison are two of the American girls he photographed that year topless and nude, and they appear to be under 18. (Their prints, as well as prints of many other Sturges photographs, are sold through the Butters Gallery) He photographed Allison full frontally nude again in 2003 and she still looked under 18. | |||
Why did he even have to go through the court process in the first place? Should the government really begin with the assumption that every photo of a girl posing with her legs open is meant to be lascivious? Why do police continually arrest Americans for taking tasteful photographs of topless and nude teenagers when it was declared to be constitutionally protected several times by the U.S. Supreme Court? Why are unconstitutional state laws against toplessness and simple nudity still in the law registers in many American states? | |||
Sources: Interview of Jock Sturges by Anthony Zinnanti, conducted March 7, 2009, posted March 9, 2009 to http://www.apug.org/forums/forum50/59155-jock-sturges-21.html "Naked Truth" by David Steinberg, in Metro (March 19-25, 1998), http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/03.19.98/cover/sturges1-9811.html (one of several published versions of the May 25, 1994 interview at http://www.nearbycafe.com/loveandlust/steinberg/erotic/essays/interview.html) "The Eye of the Beholder" by Richard Goldstein, in The Village Voice (March 4-10, 1998), http://www.villagevoice.com/news/9810,goldstein,8962,1.html "Art and 'Perversion': Censoring Images of Nude Children" by Lawrence A. Stanley, in Art Journal, vol. 50, no. 4 (Winter 1991), pages 20-27 an article about Jock Sturges by L.J. Whittemore, in The Oregonian (June 23, 1991) "Arresting images: impolitic art and uncivil actions" by Steven C. Dubin (Routledge, 1994) "Altijd heibel over foto's" by Jan Van Hove, in De Standaard Online (September 25, 2009), http://www.standaard.be/Artikel/Detail.aspx?artikelId=P12FM1LM and other articles and books | |||
The Kathryn Lesoine case (USA) | |||
Kathryn Lesoine, a female amateur photographer in Pennsylvania, took photographs during 1995 and 1996 of her stepdaughter and three of her stepdaughter's friends. These included a 15-year-old girl and a 16-year-old girl. In one set of photos, the girls were portrayed naked while washing off sand in a public shower located at a beach on Martha's Vineyard in Massachusetts. In the other set, shot inside her Pennsylvania studio, the girls were partially clothed. In the opinion of the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court written by Judge John T. Noonan Jr., no reasonable juror would be able to say that the photos were lascivious. The court was unanimous in its decision to throw out a civil lawsuit initiated by the girls' parents. | |||
In the civil suit, the parents complained that the photos were taken without their permission. The girls themselves gave their consent. The troubles for Lesoine began in 1996 when the Lackawanna County District Attorney seized many of these photos. Fortunately, the D.A. did the right thing and declined to prosecute her, explaining that she had not committed a crime. In 1997 the parents of two of the girls had filed an initial civil suit, but that case was thrown out by a federal judge in 2001. The mother of the third girl joined in as a party on the suit, but her complaint was discarded after her daughter (who had since turned 18) filed a motion declaring that she had requested Lesoine to take the photos and that her mother's lawsuit was filed without her knowledge. | |||
Generally speaking, we feel that written parental consent should continue to be required for any commercial productions, but that non-commercial productions (like these evidently were) should be free for people to create even without parental consent. | |||
The tyranny here came in the fact that the D.A. had seized the photos in the first place. Legal photographs should be examined on the premises by any investigator or police officer, rather than hauled away, and it is the responsibility of that investigator or officer to be familiar with their laws so that they do not misinterpret these laws. | |||
Source: "Photographer's Shots Of Nude Teens Ruled Not Pornographic" by The Associated Press (June 21, 2002), excerpted at http://www.bettydodson.com/nudeteensnotpornographic.htm | |||
4. The Jimmy Stephans case (USA) | |||
The American photographer Jimmy Stephans (legal name James Steven Grady) takes some of the classiest glamour photographs of teenage girls aged 13-17 at his paysite TrueTeenBabes.com, which is one component of his multi-decade photography business Group Five Photosports, LLC. He tends to take the photographs in Colorado and Florida, but occasionally he photographs his models in other states and territories, including Hawaii and the U.S. Virgin Islands. His typical material is non-nude with occasional see-thru tops and bare buttocks. But in the Spring of 2005, TrueTeenBabes released a limited-edition (100-copy) CD, "TrueTeen Breasts", with 50 topless photos of 15 year old model Yelba, 16 year old models Anna Marie Bell, Britni Elaine Wright, Dani Wells, and Lauren Skye, and 17 year old models Megan, Staci Dusk, and Danielle Nicole. One of Britni's hot topless photos simultaneously showed her naked behind. Many of these topless pictures were taken prior to 2005. | |||
At TrueTeenBabes.com, which opened in July 2001, members have access to images of many sweet and sexy American girls in sheer clothing and partially nude. For instance, there's a set with 15 year old Ashley Vukich in which she displays her bare buttocks and parts of her breast and areola. Other photos include 16 year old Lana Tidwell showing her bare buttocks, 16 year old Heather Skye wearing a see-thru top, 17 year old Elle Coley topless covered in mud, and similar content from other models. (Note: Stephans claimed that in the original incarnation of the site, from 2001-2002, the content was somewhat tamer, with no displays of partial areola, though such images existed in storage at the time.) | |||
In 2002-2003, Stephans was engaged in a costly legal battle against Colorado state authorities who wrongly prosecuted him for taking non-nude and topless photographs which are constitutionally protected. American federal law does not prohibit the exposure of the breasts and buttocks of persons under the age of 18, whether visible through semi-sheer or fully-sheer clothing or even when uncovered altogether. The U.S. Supreme Court has declared this as protected free speech several times. However, Colorado had an unconstitutional state law that prohibited "erotic nudity", which included sexually-oriented displays of the female breast under 18 ("for the purpose of real or simulated overt sexual gratification or stimulation"), and this law was used to charge Stephans. His arrest came on 5 April 2002 as the result of what Stephans describes as "a false tip from a local TV station", despite the police having already monitored the trueteenbabes.com website "4 times in March [2002]" and writing in their records: "No illegal pictures found". | |||
The trial began on 3 March 2003. During the trial, Stephans's defence team showed various photos of other under-18 teens with see-thru tops and lots of exposed cleavage, some of which appeared in issues of Jane, Gear, and Maxim magazines that had been published in 2002, and others which Stephans himself had photographed for a 1990 calendar published in 1989. The team also showed books like "The Last Day of Summer" by Jock Sturges and "The Age of Innocence" by David Hamilton which show nude people under 18. All of these books and magazines were available for purchase in Colorado in 2002, the year of Stephans's arrest. The defence team asked prosecutors to tell them why they were charging Stephans with taking photos of the same nature as these photos. Prosecutors held up a photo from TrueTeenBabes.com and responded that the difference was: "This one was on the Internet." | |||
It is interesting to note that witnesses for the prosecution started to change their mind about Stephans, undermining the case against him. According to Eric Dexheimer's article: "One by one, witnesses for the Arapahoe County DA's office turned ambivalent. Grady, they shrugged, really wasn't that bad a guy." According to Stephans: "The prosecuters subpoenaed 13 of the 64 TTB models. Not a one of them testifed that I (or my staff) had ever been anything but 100% professional and they all said, when asked by my lawyers that they would do it again." This shows that the models were not the "victims" the prosecution pretended they were, but were actually professional models being paid money for tasteful photographs produced under fun circumstances. | |||
Stephans was freed from jail after the jury found him not guilty on all counts on 13 March 2003. | |||
As with other respected artists like Richard Murrian and David Hamilton, Stephans is always careful to obtain the consent both of each model and her parent(s) or guardian(s) through a written contract. It is difficult to see how a semi-nude or nude photograph taken voluntarily and not by coercion or voyeurism, and which displays no actual sexual activities, would constitute a form of abuse. The U.S. Supreme Court in 2002 declared a general principle that material that is "neither obscene nor the product of sexual abuse" is to be considered constitutionally protected. | |||
Florida Senator Mike Fasano crafted a vague and unconstitutional bill to target TrueTeenBabes.com and similar sites, after learning TrueTeenBabes.com was operating in Florida and that police in Pinellas County, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, and the state attorney's office indicated they could not arrest and charge Stephans under existing laws. Mark Douglas, an investigative reporter with WFLA-TV NewsChannel 8 Tampa, had broadcast shows about TrueTeenBabes.com in 2006, and this had prompted Florida's law enforcement and government officials to look into the issue. Fasano said, "We have an obligation to protect those children if their parents aren't going to." He also claimed, "Taking pictures of a 13-year-old girl in a bathing suit or less than a bathing suit and broadcasting that picture on a website where it's downloaded and purchased by sick pedophiles then I believe that is against our community standards." | |||
House Bill 559 ("Material Harmful to Minors") was the companion bill to Fasano's Senate Bill 1128 and it makes it a felony "for teen modeling agencies that distribute on the internet pictures of minors in provocative circumstances", among other provisions. On 2 April 2008 the House passed the bill by a vote of 111 yeas and 0 nays. On 30 April 2008 the Senate substituted the text of HB 559 in place of their own version, and on 1 May 2008 the Senate passed it by a vote of 38 yeas and 0 nays. In a letter dated 10 June 2008 TrueTeenBabes.com announced it would stop making photo shoots with under-18 models in Florida locations, but explained that they might challenge the law in federal courts. On 2 July 2008 Florida Governor Charlie Crist signed HB 559 into law. Stephans decided to go ahead with a lawsuit and started to photograph under-18 models in Florida again for years. | |||
Sources: Discussions and articles that used to be contained at Jimmy Stephans's websites http://www.nnwebmasters.com/ and http://www.nnportal.com/ and other forums about models Jimmy Stephans's "Photographer's Corner" column dated September 14, 2006 at http://www.trueteenbabes.com/news.html "A Model Prisoner: Cops thought they'd busted the largest child-porn ring in Colorado history. But that's not how the case developed." by Eric Dexheimer, in Westword (August 14, 2003), http://www.westword.com/issues/2003-08-14/news/feature.html "Jury Reaches Verdict In James Grady Case: True Teen Babes Site Operator Found Not Guilty" by ABC 7 News (March 13, 2003), http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/2038535/detail.html "Child-porn Probe Reaches To Seminole" by Gary Taylor, in Orlando Sentinel (April 11, 2002), http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2002-04-11/news/0204110111_1_seminole-arapahoe-county-girls "Website featuring girls in lingerie at heart of new law" by Bay News 9 (July 3, 2008), http://www.baynews9.com/content/36/2008/7/2/362036.html "Florida No Haven For Teen Exploitation" by The Tampa Tribune (July 6, 2008), http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/jul/06/bz-florida-no-haven-for-teen-exploitation/ | |||