BF2S Forums Child Porn Charge for MySpace Revenge Pics

Pug wrote:

Good God Ruisleipa...you understand that:
1) He did something illegal
2) Upon his ex gf asking him to remove the pics he said no
3) Upon the cops asking him to remove the pics or get charged he said no
4) He got charged

At what point do you think the guy had the right to post pics on the internet?  How the fuck is that legal?  Imagine yourself as this guy's lawyer, how exactly are you planning to defend his position?

If you are going to make a point about proper treatment by the cops...shouldn't you use an example where the guy has a defendable position, or at least some sort of gray area?

If I was his lawyer, I'd claim mental retardation as defence. Because it is pretty fucking retarded.

Well Rus...


1) Do you think the police acted correctly?
2) Did the guy break the law?

Yes or no please.

Last edited by Pug (2010-03-17 12:26:47)

ruisleipa wrote:

Pug wrote:

Well Rus...


1) Do you think the police acted correctly?
2) Did the guy break the law?

Yes or no please.

1) In asking him to take the pics down? Yes. In charging him with child porn? No.
2) I dunno enough about US law to say but I find it hard to believe that a court would actually convict him of child pornography and sentence him to 12 years or whatever the OP said, back n the dawn of time.

Does anyone actually know what happened to this dude btw?

Let's re-ask #2 with this in mind:

It's illegal to post pornographic material without consent of the subject.
It's illegal to post pornographic matieral is the person is under 18 years of age (anywhere even with consent).
If the subject is under the age of sixteen, then child pornography laws apply.

So...I ask again.  Did the guy break the law?

You're missing the point.

Age means nothing.

I'm fairly certain he's been booked for all three of the items I've listed above.  So who gives a shit if one of the charges doesn't pan out.  It's the difference between five years or twelve years.

So did the police act incorrectly? <----this is the issue no?

I think if the guy clean or there was some sort of grey area....

I think you picked the wrong example to support the "Damn the Man" bandwagon

Fair 'nuff.  My point isn't a matter of degree - I could care less how long the guy is going to jail, when the real issue is he's probably guilty and going to jail.  I don't make a distinction between 5, 10, 25 or life imprisonment.  If the charge for kiddie porn goes away, soooooo what?  The police still got the guy charged for breaking the law.

I agree with the concept of your rights when charged with a crime.  You don't have to do anything the cops say, especially if its outside of your rights.  I don't think the police acted unreasonably in this case.  Now the district attorney might want to also try to get the kiddie porn charge to stick...as well as the other charges.  I could care less, the dude is in major trouble which could have been avoided altogether by simply taking the pics down.

The simple solution to avoid a problem is to comply with the law, which is "don't post porn on the internet without consent of those in the pics".  The police even GAVE the guy was given the opportunity to take it down or face charges.  They could have just arrested him instead.  But given the choice he still decided to face charges.

I think Lowing also is saying the same thing.  I don't think he said anything different then what I've posted...nor you for that matter.

Pug wrote:

It's illegal to post pornographic material without consent of the subject.

Is it? Which law is that under?

It's not in the UK and across most of the US as far as I'm aware. What law is that covered by in Wisconsin? These instances, of which there are loads, are usually civil cases (because it's not a crime) and are almost always lost.

@Pug

What should the girl get for producing and distributing said child porn?

Seriously?

Right to privacy deals with the consent issue.

Try google, but unless you want to be anal (google that too) I'm not going to look up the exact law.

But since I'm sure you guys are going to be dicks about it, some related help for your search:
-Go to wikipedia, "Nudity" has some stuff there.  Not linked as NSFW

http://www.associatedcontent.com/articl … tures.html

-The production of sexually explicit materials is regulated under 18 U.S.C. 2257, requiring "original" producers to retain records showing that all performers were over the age of 18 at the time of the production for inspection by the Attorney General.

Pug wrote:

Stubbee wrote:

@Pug

What should the girl get for producing and distributing said child porn?

laid?

nonsensical answer aside,

do you not think that as the original producer of said porn she should be charged under the law? she willingly distributed said porn via phone lines. she has expectancy of privacy since she willingly sent those pictures. They weren't pictures meant for her personal viewing.

Pug wrote:

Seriously?

Right to privacy deals with the consent issue.

Try google, but unless you want to be anal (google that too) I'm not going to look up the exact law.

But since I'm sure you guys are going to be dicks about it, some related help for your search:
-Go to wikipedia, "Nudity" has some stuff there.  Not linked as NSFW

http://www.associatedcontent.com/articl … tures.html

-The production of sexually explicit materials is regulated under 18 U.S.C. 2257, requiring "original" producers to retain records showing that all performers were over the age of 18 at the time of the production for inspection by the Attorney General.

Yes seriously.

You haven't provided any evidence to support your point and everything I can see about it says the exact opposite. The Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act of 1988 (18 U.S.C. 2257) is purely for the protection of minors.

Right to privacy deals with nothing. The pictures were given to him. If he took them without her consent it would be a very different thing.

You're not going to look up the exact law, because it doesn't exist.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2010-03-19 15:04:34)

Pug wrote:

Ummm...the question isn't whether her right to privacy was violated when he received the pics, but when he posted them on the internet.

None of which is relevant. If he owns the pics, he can publish them where he wants. (child porn laws aside)

She forfeits her right to the privacy of those pics when she gives them to him.

Pug wrote:

The second issue is the pics weren't meant for mass publication, and the subject was under 18 years of age.  Therefore the asshole needed to get consent as the girl was under 18. Under 18 with lack of consent, so 18 USC 2257 applies.

No one is disputing the fact there is a law against publishing child porn.

Pug wrote:

To help, the "producer" is the person who distributes it for mass consumption.  Aka the person who put it on the internet.

No it isn't. The producer is the one who produces (makes) it. The person who distributes it is classed as a secondary producer.

The regulations define the terms "primary producer" and "secondary producer". A primary producer is defined in the set of rules as any person who actually films, videotapes, or photographs a visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct. A "secondary producer" is defined as any person who produces, assembles, manufactures, publishes, duplicates, reproduces, or reissues a book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, or other matter intended for commercial distribution that contains a visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct. Different record-keeping requirements exist for primary versus secondary producers. One may be both a primary and a secondary producer.

You could say she is more liable for the child porn charges than him. There have been several cases of girls being charged for child porn offences for filming/taking pics of themselves naked.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2010-03-19 15:32:56)