Juvenile pornographers????

[Technoid]

I remember a girl from Jr. High (~13yo) that was completely developed physically and had the judgment of a 4 year old regarding things of a boy-girl nature.
Wouldn't she deserve some kind of protection?

I think you thought train derailed somewhere.

------

Now My initial post wasn't as clear as it should have been, I'll try and fix that now.

The Laws in sweden about Childpornography handless possession and distribution. (vieving is not illegal yet, but that another can of worms).

When a picture is determined to be CP or not, it is judged by what situation it is depicting and the apparent age of the person(s) in it. Since most of the time you don't know the exact age of the subjects , nor when it was taken.

Punishment of people creating said material is handled by other laws. (sexual Molestation of a child, see further down)

Another crazy case of young teenagers being accused of child pornography. Apparently, a 13 y-o boy sent a mobile phone pic of a girl friend in a state of partial undress and he may become a registered sex offender for life, as may a handful of other boys who received it.

In sweden, this would have been up to the parents if they had been cought to meter out whatever punishment they think was appropriate, since the boy was under the age where he can be judged in court (16 years).

For instance;
Traci Lords porno movies are not considered CP in sweden and are therefor not illegal.
The people involved would (if they would have) have been prosecuted for "willful neglect" as they didnt bother to check her age.

----

Now back to cjolley:
Depending on what we hypothise the hypothetical abuser did to her, lets for sake of example say that he (or she) used her mental retardnes against her and snapped nude pictures of her.
He would end up in jail for up to 2 years. And it would be classified sexual Molestation of a child and be "aggravated" because of her mental retardation.
on the other hand the pictures would not be cp.

Even if she wasn't mentally retarded he could still end up on the same charges (it would probably not be aggravated) it works a bit like statutory rape laws and has the same age line but its more depending on the circumstances.

On the other hand if he (or she) had done anything physically sexual towards her, it would have been statutory rape (15) and to up to 2 years and (like in this case) if it was aggravated up to 6 years.

Just because Swedish law isn't a blunt bludgeon when it comes to CP, does not mean that children and young teenagers aren't protected!

[Technoid]

You cant _prove_ that she is a teenager. Besides, its a painting. For some reason its perfectly fair to paint whatever you like.

Must be because paintings doesnt capture your soul - the way a crappy picture taken by a mobile phone does.

~~DukeP~~

Actually in Sweden it doesn't matter if its a photograph or a painting.

Same rules apply.....

[KRSESQ]

Just saw "Pretty Baby" for the first time last week. Sure enough, there was twelve-year-old Brooke Shields parading around in the altogether. Aired UNCUT on Turner Classic Movies (basic cable in these parts) early Saturday morning.

Under these laws, director Louis Malle could be prosecuted for manufacturing and disseminating child porn (and he very nearly was, iirc). Ted Turner could be prosecuted for dissemination, as could the production staff at TCM that approved the broadcast. Crazier yet, Brooke Shields herself could be prosecuted, along with her mother! And every poor bastard who tivo'ed it!

Kevin

[Technoid]

This is a pic of a nude teenager. Is it pornography? If so, the Uffizi Gallery in Florence is displaying it, and selling prints and postcards of it by the hundreds. It is part of Alessandro Botticelli's Birth of Venus, one of the top ten well known paintings, shortly after the Mona Lisa and the Last Supper. What makes this painting non-porno? Could a photo of a 15-y.o. girl in the buff not be equally artistic? Where is the line drawn?

That motive would not be considered porn in sweden regardless of the models age.

(it could still be sexual molestation but thats depending on circumstances)

[TransformX]

After reading this thread, I must say I'm on the same side as Technoid and DukeP on that subject. Kreseq's last post proves them right (to me) beyond doubt and proves that there's a very big ugly and dirty double standard in the U.S.

Just saw "Pretty Baby" for the first time last week. Sure enough, there was twelve-year-old Brooke Shields parading around in the altogether. Aired UNCUT on Turner Classic Movies (basic cable in these parts) early Saturday morning.

Under these laws, director Louis Malle could be prosecuted for manufacturing and disseminating child porn (and he very nearly was, iirc). Ted Turner could be prosecuted for dissemination, as could the production staff at TCM that approved the broadcast. Crazier yet, Brooke Shields herself could be prosecuted, along with her mother! And every poor bastard who tivo'ed it!

Kevin

[KRSESQ]

You're right about the double standard. In my earlier post I was going to mention that you folks across the pond would think this all very silly of us yanks. Then I figured out that it probably wasn't necessary.

I forgot to add to my list all of the local, regional, and national cable and satellite providers who could also be prosecuted. I wouldn't be surprised if this was a calculated plan on Turner's part to challenge these laws. Could you imagine a DA trying to prosecute EVERYONE in this food chain?

Kevin

[cjolley]

Mentally handicapped people and Sex.

Now back to cjolley:
Depending on what we hypothise the hypothetical abuser did to her, lets for sake of example say that he (or she) used her mental retardnes against her and snapped nude pictures of her.

I didn't say she was mentally handicapped.
She wasn't, she was at least average, maybe more.

She was 12 years old with huge breasts and poor self esteem.
And having pictures snapped of her was the least of her problems.

[DukeP]

People should just GET OVER THE SEX SCARE!

In Denmark, as in most european countries, its actually frowned upon to create a neonazi party (at least most of the rhetorhics are illegal). In Germany I think its flat illegal.

BUT: Nowhere is it illegal to make a movie about the Nazies, to depict Nazies in a movie, or to have nazies in a movie say bad things aboud yews, prostitutes and the handicapped.

Why should movies about a clearly illegal "pretty Baby" thing be disallowed?

~~DukeP~~

[KRSESQ]

Basically, it was the argument that "Pretty Baby" was a more or less accurate artistic depiction of factual events in 1917 New Orleans that kept it from being branded "child porn" and being banned outright. As it is, three minutes (and it's easy to pinpoint which three minutes) was excised from the American release (and restored in the TCM broadcast).

Kevin

[cjolley]

People should just GET OVER THE SEX SCARE!

In Denmark, as in most european countries, its actually frowned upon to create a neonazi party (at least most of the rhetorhics are illegal). In Germany I think its flat illegal.

BUT: Nowhere is it illegal to make a movie about the Nazies, to depict Nazies in a movie, or to have nazies in a movie say bad things aboud yews, prostitutes and the handicapped.

Why should movies about a clearly illegal "pretty Baby" thing be disallowed?

~~DukeP~~

Well of course the actors in your Nazi movie aren't required to convert to Nazism and believe the things they are saying in the movie.

And any actor stealing in a movie is not really stealing, it's all props after all.

But, a child actor depicting sex related content is still a child while on stage and should be protected from acts that in any other context would be clearly illegal.

The truth is that if it was up to me Pretty Baby, three minutes and all, would be ok, but just barely. After all, it's not illegal for a family with children to go to a nudist camp.

And I can understand prosecutors that want to err on the side of protecting the child.
It's prosecutors that want to err on the side of prosecuting the child that has us all scratching our heads.

[Brian Ellis]

Pretty Baby, three minutes and all, would be ok, but just barely

It was more than just barely, it was very barely

[KRSESQ]

After all, it's not illegal for a family with children to go to a nudist camp.

Murking up these waters is the fact that it is NOT illegal to photograph children in the nude in a neutral, non-sexual setting. Meaning it is perfectly legal to photograph children at a nude beach and to publish those photos, as long as you have the permission of the parent or legal guardian.

This law was of course enacted to shield parents from prosecution under child porn laws when they snap those charming naked baby pix.

Kevin

[cjolley]

It was more than just barely, it was very barely

He takes the slow pitch and whacks it over the fence.

I saw the movie around when it first came out 30 years ago so I don't really remember much about it.

[TransformX]

The sad side: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29583534/

[Brian Ellis]

Sad, yes, but who is really to blame? The girl (who was an adult) herself sent out the pic in the first place.