Do you really believe that classifying a teenaged girl taking a photo OF HERSELF to send as a private message to another teenaged girlfriend or boyfriend as "child pornography" constitutes "common sense"?
Do you really believe that prosecuting a teenaged girl taking a photo OF HERSELF to send as a private message to another teenaged girlfriend or boyfriend for "child pornography" constitutes "common sense"?
My "common sense" tells me that the overzealous D.A., getting his sick, perverted jollies by "examining the evidence" in the case is, as the adult viewer of the "evidence", the only one engaged in "child pornography" here under the spirit of the law regarding "child pornography".
My "common sense" is that the D.A. should have never even looked at the "evidence", ordered the reporting Police officer to erase it, reported the incident to the parents, and acted as a decent adult instead of a pervert that goes around showing photos of naked teenaged girls to other members of the D.A.'s office.
Would an establishment, catering to adults, be engaged in "child pornography" by advertising:
LOOK AT NAKED TEENAGED GIRLS, LIVE! HOT TUB WITH NAKED TEENAGED GIRLS!!!
"Common sense" would be on the side of, yes, that constitutes "child pornography".
If six teenagers take advantage of the fact that Mr. & Mrs. Smith are away on a trip for the weekend to have a hot tub, skinny-dipping party at 16 year old Jennifer Smith's house, does it constitute "common sense" to charge Jennifer Smith and her five school friends with "child pornography"?
When the six teens are busted (they made a little bit too much noise and the Police came to the enclosed hot tub area to check things out) is it not more "common sense" to have the parent's deal with this than having the Government streeeeeeeetching the definition of "child pornography" to the breaking point.
But to actually write a statute that de-criminalizes the act if done by minors would open up loopholes for real pornographers to exploit.
Who said anything about changing the statute?
What I am advocating is applying common sense to an individual case.
You are the one who seemed to be questioning the definition of child porn. What I am advocating is applying common sense to an individual case.
So am I. I think the law is fine as it is, but the DA should (and last I heard was) exercising his discretion to not make a criminal case out of this.
There is no overzealous DA, as you imagine.