Teen Faces Porn Charges for Nude MySpace Pictures, Another one bites the dust! Options

[illriginal]

A 14 year old New Jersey girl has been accused of child pornography after posting over 30 explicit nude pictures of herself on MySpace.com, charges that could force her to register as a sex offender if convicted.

Video: http://webcastr.com/videos/underground/tee...e-pictures.html


You'd think that children would just learn their lessons by now.

Oh by the way, I'm one of those people on Myspace who actually does report people for nudity of any form.

[brooklyneast05]

how does your bolded shit prove anything? dee's whole point is there is a difference between nudity and pornography. standing around nude is different than standing around nude jacking off. i don't see how your bolded examples prove her wrong in that.

(a) In general. Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly produces, distributes, receives, or possesses with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that--
(1) (A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and

standing around nude isn't depicting sexual conduct, so this shouldn't matter to her

(B) is obscene; or

i guess this matters to people who think the human body is inherently an obscene thing

(3) the term "graphic", when used with respect to a depiction of sexually explicit conduct, means that a viewer can observe any part of the genitals or pubic area of any depicted person or animal during any part of the time that the sexually explicit conduct is being depicted.

yeah once again standing around nude doesn't equal depicting sexual conduct. you made the text that says "means the viewer can observe any part of the genitals or public area of any depicted person" bigger but the rest of the sentence clearly goes on to read DURING ANY PART OF THE TIME THE SEXUALLY EXPLICIT CONDUCT IS BEING DEPICTED.

so, if sexually depicted conduct isn't being depicted, then the first part means nothing. if it was just saying that viewing the genitals alone is graphic then i'd agree with you. but it doesn't, it says viewing them while a sexual act is being depicted is graphic.

(v) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;

once again standing around nude doesn't fit with this because nudity in itself isn't "lascivious" and it clearly goes out of its' way to define it has having to be "lascivious" not just in plain view.

what did you prove? that depicting sexual acts and showing the genitals isn't allowed? dee never said it wasn't. she said being nude is not automatically pornography. i don't see the point. people are so scared of nakedness

nudity =/= porn. you didn't even really post anything different than dee. you're just reading them differently than her. hers say the same thing about it not being porn unless sexual acts are depicted. i don't see anything that says nakedness alone is classified as graphic and porn