Post Photo of Your Child Online, Go to Jail!

[Lord MJ]

Watching Raising the Bar yesterday there was a case where a father took naked photos of his son and posted them on his personal webpage intended for "Friends and Family."

Someone eventually found those photos and posted them to porn sites. Eventually the police tracked the father down and he was charged with possessing and distributing child pornography. The plea that was offered required him to register as a sex offender.

Was wondering what you thought about the case. Is the simple act of posting a photo of your son online a crime that should be punished. Is it only a crime if someone tries to sexually exploit the image. If someone does try to sexually exploit the image who is at fault, the father or the exploiter.

Lets assume in this case that the father's only intention was for the photos to be viewed by friends and family.

What do you think?

[Count Chocula]

I haven't seen the pictures that are alleged to be child porn, but it indicates to me that the police automatically made the equation "nekkid kid = PORNZOMG!" Unfortunately, some pedophile also saw a naked photo of this man's son and, in his twisted mind, it became porn.

Nudity, per se, is no big deal; hell, those of us with young kids see them nude every day. Why just yesterday at the beach a mother stripped her 3-year-old son naked to shower him, and...nothing happened. And oh gee whillikers, my family and in-laws have seen bath-time pictures of my son and have even been in the same room with him!?!?! Perhaps I should go to the police station now and give myself up for punishment [/sarcasm].

It seems that the police who arrested and convicted the father failed to understand context. These were family pictures, on a personal Web page. Maybe he should have made the Web page private; maybe he did. Either way, there was nothing wrong in my mind with him posting images of his son for friends and family; the perv who put them on kiddie porn Web sites is the one who should have been charged and tarred with the sex offender brush.

[Lord MJ]

The image was discovered on the porn website.

I really don't have much problems with the cops as opposed to the DAs that decided to prosecute the case. My personal opinion being that it takes a special kind of moron to actually pursue the argument that this was a crime on the fathers part for over a year, but that's just my opinion.

[Kodiak]

The image was discovered on the porn website.

I really don't have much problems with the cops as opposed to the DAs that decided to prosecute the case. My personal opinion being that it takes a special kind of moron to actually pursue the argument that this was a crime on the fathers part for over a year, but that's just my opinion.

I think it comes down to what the intent was on the part of the father: he took pictures of his son for an online family photo album. If the father had been into metalworking and made a knife to show off his ability to friends and family and somebody took that knife and committed a crime with it, where's the fault? Or if not a knife, then a gun? The cops in question made a huge leap to charge the father whom (I assume) had no prior sex offenses or charges of child pornography.

[Darth Wong]

This is the problem with all obscenity laws: they are heavily dependent upon interpretation. There are statues of guys with their dicks hanging out in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, and nobody rushes in to accuse them of publicly displaying pornography.

Any law which requires so much subjective interpretation should be seriously questioned. In my opinion, while it is definitely creepy for a child-porn scumbag to be pleasuring himself to naked pictures of children, mere nudity itself should not be considered a crime. If they're going to produce a legal definition of pornography, it should be objective, eg- "the child must be engaging in sexual activity".

[Twoyboy]

Without a reference it's a bit difficult to pass judgement. I mean, if the police charged the father because they had reason to believe that he sent the pictures to the porn site, then yeah, he needed to be charged. After all, it does say they charged him with "distribution", a vague term I realise but still, even if he allowed access to someone he knew would do such a thing, that's enough for me. However, if the facts are as you say, then yeah, the charge looks like the justice system trying to look like it's being tough, when it should be smart.

Any law which requires so much subjective interpretation should be seriously questioned. In my opinion, while it is definitely creepy for a child-porn scumbag to be pleasuring himself to naked pictures of children, mere nudity itself should not be considered a crime. If they're going to produce a legal definition of pornography, it should be objective, eg- "the child must be engaging in sexual activity".

But doesn't it have to be somewhat subjective? I mean, surely you would admit that some nude pictures are purely for the purpose of titillation? If I take pictures of my kids running naked through the sprinklers in the back yard, to me this is very different to having a pre-teen adopt a sexy pose, even if no more is shown. So at some stage, if the police have a reason to believe this was the purpose of the photos, shouldn't they act and let the courts decide?

Note: obviously this doesn't apply to the OP, as in that case the pictures were described as family snaps.

[General Zod]

I don't think we can really say it was distribution or not without more to go on, but if the website was available for anyone with an internet connection to find? I think posting them is a profound lapse of judgment. It'd be all too easy for some nosy soccer-mom or boss or co-worker to find the site, see the pictures and start spreading rumors that the father is a pedophile. Something like that is nigh impossible to shake off even if you're innocent.

[Darth Wong]

But doesn't it have to be somewhat subjective? I mean, surely you would admit that some nude pictures are purely for the purpose of titillation?

Yes. But we have this principle called "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt". It's not enough to say that it seems a certain way to me, or to write laws which are interpreted by gut feeling. We need an objective standard, otherwise the defendant is not getting his due process.

[Lord MJ]

From the show the DA wasn't seeking jail time per se, he wanted to plea it out to a sentence that had no jail time, but would require the father to give up custody of his child, and would require the father to register as a sex offender.

Case went to trial and ended in a hung jury. The DA so adamant in his position opted to try the case again.

Interesting this is that the DA abandoned very early on any argument that the father gave the photo to the pornograhers, or that he intended for pornographers to get the photo from the website. Simply the mere act of placing it on the website made the father criminally liable for anything illicit anyone would do with the photo and that the father breached his responsibilities as a parent.

[Simon_Jester]

I don't care for that, for obvious reasons. In a case like this, if the prosecutor wins he would open a major can of worms.. If that's true of baby pictures, it should be true of everything. And that means you're criminally liable for anything anyone chooses to do with a product of your making, regardless of whether you consented to the use.

The implications would be very widespread; think what the anti-gun lobby could do with that precedent.

As a practical matter, I think the father made a mistake (and not just because he got into this horrible legal mess), but I don't think he did anything that should be illegal.

[Terralthra]

I think critiquing a legal case which hasn't actually happened is ridiculous on its face. Saying "the DA shouldn't have prosecuted," is obvious, because to my knowledge, no DA ever has prosecuted such a case.

[RedImperator]

I think critiquing a legal case which hasn't actually happened is ridiculous on its face. Saying "the DA shouldn't have prosecuted," is obvious, because to my knowledge, no DA ever has prosecuted such a case.

Case went to trial and ended in a hung jury. The DA so adamant in his position opted to try the case again.

Case went to trial

Case went to trial

At any rate, even if this hadn't already gone to trial once, the DA offered a plea, which presumes the DA intends to take it to trial if the plea isn't accepted (or is attempting to bully a father into giving up custody of his son and registering as a sex offender on a bluff).

[Netko]

MJ is talking about an episode of the show Raising the bar, which is a courtroom fictional drama series, not a documentary series.

While its possible that a similar case was the basis for their story this week - it wouldn't be that surprising, there is no proof of that.

So yes, the thread is basically discussing a hypothetical.

[Terralthra]

I think critiquing a legal case which hasn't actually happened is ridiculous on its face. Saying "the DA shouldn't have prosecuted," is obvious, because to my knowledge, no DA ever has prosecuted such a case.

Case went to trial and ended in a hung jury. The DA so adamant in his position opted to try the case again.

Case went to trial

Case went to trial

At any rate, even if this hadn't already gone to trial once, the DA offered a plea, which presumes the DA intends to take it to trial if the plea isn't accepted (or is attempting to bully a father into giving up custody of his son and registering as a sex offender on a bluff).

I find it hilarious you are trying to call my attention to the details of a post while simultaneously ignoring the most important detail: it's from a fucking TV SHOW.