The law is tempered to look at who is distributing, and the circumstances. The Deputy District Attorneys and US Attorneys who look at this stuff are usually sympathetic to not wanting to completely destroy the lives of kids who participate in sexting. That being said, they do not sipmly turn a blind eye to it when it happens. A child who is convicted of sexting, generally is only going to get probation for a first offense. But the conviction on his or her record can be devastating, even when the original charges or illegal underage porn distribution are reduced to something like "disturbing the peace."

Another point about this discussion is that it appears that some people do not understand that a person can be prosecuted for underage porn distribution under BOTH state and federal laws. Some people are talking about the laws in their state, and some are talking about the federal laws. But a person can be charged under both.

The next interesting issue that comes up in these cases is whether the pictures are obscene. And to that issue, we have to look to the community standards where the defendant is being charged. Hollywood would have a different standard from say an Amish community. For a more full discussion:

http://library.findlaw.com/2003/May/15/132747.html

 

Bored people.

 

Thanks for the information christopher, I followed the link and read the article. Here is a condensed version of the article.

In the 1973 case, Miller v. California, the tide turned on free speech when the Court opinions on obscenity became more conservative. Justice Burger announced the majority position of the Court, and the definition of obscenity, which, more or less, is still in effect today.

What the Miller test outlines is the outer most limits on free speech and bans sexual speech beyond this limit. Thus, nearly all legislation at the state and federal levels uses the Miller test to judge what is and isn’t protected speech.

The Miller definition is based on what the average person, applying contemporary local community standards would consider when judging the work as a whole:

The Current Definition or test of what is Obscene:

(a) Does the work appeal to the prurient interest.

"Appeals to the prurient interest" means that which appeals to "shameful or morbid interests" in sex, but not that which incites normal lust. This includes materials designed for and primarily disseminated to a deviant sexual group (for example, sadists) which appeals to the prurient interests of that group;

(b) Is the work patently offensive.

"Patently offensive means representations or descriptions of ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated including masturbation, excretory functions, and lewd exhibition of the genitals."


(c) When taken as a whole does the work lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."

Using a national standard, Serious artistic, political, or scientific value, is required for a finding that a work is not obscene. However the finding of some artistic, political or scientific value does not preclude that a work is not obscene.

The Definition of Child Pornography

For all practical purposes, child pornography is any and all depictions of naked juveniles. There are cases of parents being arrested for taking naked pictures of their young children taking a bath.

Furthermore, the law "Recognizes and classifies child pornography as a category of material outside the protection of the First Amendment” and therefore there can be no argument to justify this kind of expression as protected speech. That means that the 3 part definition of pornography as described above is not applied to child pornography and any material that features naket juvinals can be classified as pornography even if it does not appeal to the prurient interest, is not patently offensive, and demonstrates that it is a work that has serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

In conclusion:

What persons in the sex industry, and ordinary citizen typically fail to understand is how conservative the legal standards for pornography are and how vulnerable to prosecution they truly are due to these legal vagaries.

Vagarity: a capricious, erratic, unpredictable action or notion.

Hope the above answers a lot of questions and gives you something to think about. Please feel free to post additional information and ask questions. I know some posters think all this is stupid and boring but the fact is that all this is very important to those of us that want to make sure that we are on the right side of the law.

It is also very important that we understand how these laws affect our personal freedoms and our lives, liberty and our ability to pursuit the things that make us happy.

HD

 

It seems that the legal situation doesn't help to clarify matters in Oz, either. I remember getting a book when I was younger, called "When Can I...?" It was about the legal ages for various things. In South Australia, the age of consent is 17. I'm pretty sure, however, that nude pictures can't be taken under the age of 18. Anything more than 'softcore' porn — higher than 'R' rated, in other words — is illegal in all states and territories of Australia, except the Australian Capital Territory, so that pretty much takes care of that aspect.
However, females can get married at the age of 14 here, provided they have both their parent's and the court's permission. Crazy, huh?

 

... i wouldnt think so...

 

Below, I quote or paraphrase myself and various posters.

"It is the arbitrariness of the law which is troubling."

You hit the nail right on the head. It is the arbitrariness of the (sex) laws that are the real problem.

The law normally prides itself on being reasonable, just and fair, but in the case of adult men having sex with an underage girl, a man still gets arrested and charged even if he had grounds to believe that the young woman was of legal age. In this case the law expects the man to be able to discern her true age even when faced with the most elaborate deceptions. And the worst part is that he can not use his ignorance of her age as a defence.

"There was an episode of Law and Order: Special Victims Unit not too long ago that dealt with a teenage girl being charged with distributing child pornography because she had texted pictures of herself to her boyfriend."

Quoting from Wikipedia: "Based on Max Extreme 4, the city of Los Angeles in 1998 charged him with child pornography and distribution of obscenity. The fact that the actress was over the age of 18 was not disputed; they brought charges based solely on the fact that the actress was portraying a character who was underage."

In a recent case, a 14 year old girl took a couple of 12 year old boys into the woods for a little three way. Eventually they got caught and the two boys were arrested and charged with statutory rape. As usual, even though all the kids said the sex was consensual, the boys were charged because the girl was underage and could not legally give consent. The boys parents argued that the boys were younger than the girl and they too were legally incapable of giving consent. So why were the boys charged and not the girl? Is this a reasonable way of interpreting the law or an example of sex discrimination?

For all practical purposes, child pornography is any and all depictions of naked juveniles. There are cases of parents being arrested for taking naked pictures of their young children taking a bath.


In most states were the age of consent is set at 16 or below, there is a statutory limit on how much older the sexual partner can be. Usually, about 5 years older. That means that if a 16 year old girl has sex with a 21 year old man, that's okay... but if the man is 22 or over, we are back to statutory rape. Why is she legally competent to have sex with a 21 year old but not a 22 year old? How does the fact that he is one year older make her less competent? Is this a reasonable law or an example of age discrimination?

I recently read an article about a New Hampshire statutory rape law. It said that if a man has sex with a woman of legal age that is drunk, he can be charged with statutory rape because in her drunken state she would be unable to give consent. The law also states that it is not a defense to say he did not know she was drunk or that he was drunk himself.


What people typically fail to understand is how conservative the legal standards for pornography and the laws governing sex with minors really are and how vulnerable to prosecution they make us due to the vagaries of the laws and the arbitrary way they are enforced.

I guess the big question here is, can the law be both fair, just, reasonable and arbitrary?

Definition of Arbitrary: 1a: a choice or decision based on individual discretion and not fixed by rule of law 2a : not restrained or limited in the exercise of power. 3a: ruling by absolute authority. 4a: decisions marked by or resulting from the unrestrained and often tyrannical exercise of power. [/QUOTE]

Definition of Vagarity: a capricious, erratic, unpredictable action or notion.

Unfortunately most people ignore the vagarity and arbitrary nature of our sex laws until they or someone they know are persecuted. By then it is too late. Even if the case is dropped or the charges are lowered in a plea deal, the consequences and cost of the arrest can be devastating.

 

Yep, I know all about the consequences. About three years ago, I (like an idiot) brought printed copies of stories I downloaded from this very site to work. Somehow, a page from one of these stories was found by my counterpart on another shift. He, instead of confronting me about it, took it to his supervisor, who then told the general manager, who told the police.

The next thing I knew, there was a group of 4 detectives conducting a search of my house and workplace. Amongst other items they took from my house was a naked picture my wife had taken of our (then) 3 year-old daughter — the type of thing you embarass your kids with at their 21st.
[
QUOTE]For all practical purposes, child pornography is any and all depictions of naked juveniles. There are cases of parents being arrested for taking naked pictures of their young children taking a bath.
[/QUOTE]

In addition to this, the lead detective had the gall to ask me whether my daughter was in any danger.

What were the stories in question? I will admit that most of them did involve underage persons. However, these were stories about young males with older females. Was he too stupid to notice the relative ages of my wife and myself? Did he not realise that I saw, in a manner of speaking, myself as the younger male in the stories? Nobody was at any risk of harm!

Yes, according to the letter of the law I had commited a crime. But the spirit of the law is to protect children. Any child, let alone mine, was not at risk from my actions.

When the case was heard before the magistrate, I had no option to plead guilty, even though I still feel the charges were unjust, as my wife had chosen to stick by me, and I didn't want her to be dragged through the mud also. In addition to this, I was refused legal aid (in Australia, there is an income means test to determine eligibility for legal aid), and as we had to live on my termination pay from my job (yes, I lost my job), I could barely afford what little my lawyer did for me, let alone the costs that would have arisen from choosing to fight the charge.

Although there was no conviciton recorded, and the only penalty I received was a fine, my appearance in court meant that it will now appear on police records. My wife and I ended up having to sell our house and move to a different town.

My advice to anyone who either submits stories on this site, or reads them, is to be extremely careful about not letting others — except those who you can completely trust — see what you write or read. Even if you do not intend on carrying out any acts, or similar, depicted in any story on here, and the only person that is likely to come to any harm is yourself, you can still get into a world of trouble that will follow you to the end of your days.

 

Hot4fam...."Max Little was NEVER indicted on anything related to children. In fact, ALL charges related to "underage" models were dropped."


********************
That is very true Mr. Hot, and your point is wll taken but I never said he was indicted on charges related to children. I said he was arrested on charges related to child pornography. See my quote bellow.

Quoting from Wikipedia: "Based on Max Extreme 4, the city of Los Angeles in 1998 charged him with child pornography and distribution of obscenity. The fact that the actress was over the age of 18 was not disputed; they brought charges based solely on the fact that the actress was portraying a character who was underage."

My point was that :
"Even if the case is dropped or the charges are lowered in a plea deal, the consequences and cost of the arrest can be devastating."

Judge from the experience of Oz_Homer.

"When the case was heard before the magistrate, I had no option then to plead guilty, even though I still feel the charges were unjust" ... "(yes, I lost my job)," ... "Although there was no conviciton recorded, and the only penalty I received was a fine, my appearance in court meant that it will now appear on police records." ... "My wife and I ended up having to sell our house and move to a different town."

Therefore I repeat my warning:

"Unfortunately most people ignore the vagarity and arbitrary nature of our sex laws until they or someone they know are persecuted. By then it is too late. Even if the case is dropped or the charges are lowered in a plea deal, the consequences and cost of the arrest can be devastating."

Thanks for posting your opinions, Hot4fam and Oz_Homer

 

OK, I s'pose I'd better back up a bit and give you more of an idea of what was going on. At the time, I was doing 12-hour rotating shifts for a contractor on-site at a steelworks. The area I worked in was quite isolated from the contractor's other operations, and I was pretty much left to my own devices, unless I was doing certain tasks, or if something went wrong.
I wasn't seeing my wife all that often, and having sex even less.
I started downloading and printing off the stories at home in order to, y'know, help "relieve the tension." I was worried that my wife might find them, so I took them to work and left them in my locker . I was toying with the idea of throwing them away in one of the large dumpsters on site (where there might have been some chance that they wouldn't be found) but I never got around to it.
To this day, I'm not entirely sure how the page was 'found.' I was told at the time (by the company's lawyer when I had a meeting with him and the General Manager) that someone had found it on the floor of the locker area. I am almost definite that I had made sure that nothing from my locker was, actually, lying on the floor before finishing my shift.
In addition to this I had lost my keys, so my locker was unlocked. It is more than likely that someone went through my locker, noticed the printed pages, read one of the stories, and decided to 'dob me in.' The other, equally likely, scenario is that whoever went through my locker didn't actually notice the stories, and accidentaly knocked one of the pages onto the floor.

 

Presumably the law gives citizens certain protections against police who abuse their authority and falsely arrested citizens or more correctly stated, arrest citizens without probable cause. That is more true in theory than in reality. Probable cause is a very low threshold and most states set limits when it allows citizens to sue the state. In Florida it is $100,000. That may seem like a lot but litigation is very expensive and the state has very deep pockets. Additionally police control the evidence and they can get a dozen cops to swear under oath that they had this or that information or evidence prior to arrest. Unless you have an open and shut case, most lawyer will tell you that the state will protect their officers and fight your claim. Also, the case will probably take years and even if you are awarded the full amount, after cost and lawyers fees you will probably get next to nothing. Another thing to consider is that the media will report the case as "man accused of child pornography sues police." Then they will print your name, address and the details of the arrest as recorded in the police report.


Most people in that position just want to put it all behind them and move on with their lives... less their jobs, self respect and reputation.

You said that "The courts have routinely held that stories are protected." I'd like to see something on that if you have it. I'm not doubting you, I've just never run across any information on that subject and I'm sure a lot of people at xnxx would like to see it.

Thanks again for your intelligent and informed comments.

 

bit of information

in france it is illegal to sell or pass on pornographic material as well as to take it, however it is not illegal to possess it, example is Traci Lord's underage videos are still actually legal in france to possess.

FYI im from the UK

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Hardcore

Internets are hard :roll:

 

Stop typing in fucking white ... not everyone uses the default blue background

 

The picture would still be illegal to post or to download. There are still videos of Tracy Lord floating around that were made when she was 15 and the hottest thing in porn because she lied about her age and she looked older. We take them down at another site I'm involved with because they are illegal. The law in the US is very concrete and the punishment for knowingly possessing underage pictures is sever. Like 7 years in prison for even one picture.

 

Thanks BiGuyDave but someone sent me this same link and I already got and posted the information I needed.

Re: Posting in white. Sometimes when I look at my post in preview they are in black against blue which is difficult to read. Since all the post on my screen are white on blue I didn't see any harm by posting in whit. If anyone has had this same problem and wants to send me a solution I'd appreciate it.

Thanks.

 

The way to read white or one of the other colors that don't show up well is to highlight them with the mouse like you were going to copy them.

White is what black shows as on the dark blue screen. If you leave it alone and then it will show correctly on both screens. If you change the default color and actually post in white though, we can't read it without a hassle. Same with yellow and other light colors. Switch back and forth and find a color that show up on both screens if you want to use color. Like this one for instance.

 

Thanks Ceilingcat,... I think the problem occurs when I copy from another source (not xnxx text) and then past it on the message box. That causes the text to show up as black on the blue background. As you suggest I'll just change the color of the copied text instead of changing all the text to white.

I wonder if clicking on the "Remove Text Formatting" button would also correct the problem.

 

have to think that a lot of people who bother to reply in the negative are being just a little disengenius....Most porn is geared towards showing the model as youthful looking as possible...surely the rule can be...Look but dont touch?

 

Aint' gonna touch this one with a 10 foot dick. :excited:

 

That's a dangerous game though and besides how can a young girl or boy be expected to fully understand the consequences of putting nude photos on the internet?