Yes but that is true in many situations and both police and the courts are supposed to draw it in a little bit and apply commonsense and due diligence. Neither occurs.
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Michael Madigan Sent: Friday, 27 March 2009 3:38 PM To: ProFox Email List Subject: RE: [OT] No common sense anymore The laws are too broad. ************************************************* Join the OBAMA RESISTANCE MOVEMENT! http://www.cafepress.com/rightwingmike/6181419 --- On Fri, 3/27/09, Geoff Flight <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Geoff Flight <[email protected]> > Subject: RE: [OT] No common sense anymore > To: "'ProFox Email List'" <[email protected]> > Date: Friday, March 27, 2009, 12:57 AM > One would think that 'child > pornography' should involve both a child and > pornography. Now it can involve someone who is not a child > (just looks > possibly like one), a cartoon, text and it does not have to > be pornographic > - just potentially so in the eyes of 'someone'. That covers > a great deal of > material. And the sentences now dished out mean you are a > registered sex > offender once you get out of jail... for downloading a > photo that would be > at best erotic in the eyes of some. In the meantime > the guy nextdoor who > beats his wife in front of his kid gets a community service > order. Frankly > the application of these laws scare me as I'm afraid that > some photo I > download accidentally or take might be construed as > pornographic in this > brave new world where 18+ can do ANYTHING and 17 years 364 > days cant even > take photos of themselves! And lets not forget browser > hijackers like > coolwebsearch etc... > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] > On Behalf > Of Michael Madigan > Sent: Friday, 27 March 2009 3:19 PM > To: ProFox Email List > Subject: RE: [OT] No common sense anymore > > > Yeah I remember the cartoon nonsense. > > There have been many instances of parents taking pictures > of their kids in > the pool or bathtub being arrested because the Wal-Mart > photo clerk called > the police. > > It used to be that child pornography only applied to > children involved in a > sex act or posed or dressed in a lewd way. Now a 14yo > girl sending nude > pictures to herself to friends, while stupid and not > something you want your > child doing, is faced with being arrested and becoming a > convicted felon. > > Crazy. > > > ************************************************* > Join the OBAMA RESISTANCE MOVEMENT! > > http://www.cafepress.com/rightwingmike/6181419 > > > --- On Fri, 3/27/09, Geoff Flight <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > From: Geoff Flight <[email protected]> > > Subject: RE: [OT] No common sense anymore > > To: "'ProFox Email List'" <[email protected]> > > Date: Friday, March 27, 2009, 12:40 AM > > World wide the child porn charge is > > getting well and truly out of hand. Over > > here we had a person convicted and confirmed on appeal > of > > possessing child > > porn for having the 'adult' Simpsons cartoon (bart > and > > lisa). The judges > > said that bart and lisa are 'children'. And on and on > it > > goes. True child > > porn is evil. A teenager taking nude photos of herself > and > > sending them to > > someone is not. It is dumb - not evil. And who wants > to > > stand up against > > child porn laws and their uses? No-one. Until the day > > arrives that > > possession of a photo of any child is a crime - > including > > drawings, cartoons > > and literature. I'm sick to death of this utter crap > that > > charges CHILDREN > > with child porn charges like this. Where are the > > politicians with a brain, > > wehere are the judges with a conscience. In NSW here > there > > was concern that > > child porn convictions were low and people where > getting > > off for the > > technicality of the cops being unable to prove the > girl in > > the photo was > > under 18. So what do they do? Pass a law saying that > if a > > child is dressed > > in a style that is <16yo then that person can be > > considered underage unless > > you can prove otherwise. Its getting to the stage that > it > > is dangerous to > > own a digital camera. > > > > Id like to say this is from the 'only in america' file > but > > it aint. It's > > happening everywhere. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] > > [mailto:[email protected]] > > On Behalf > > Of Michael Madigan > > Sent: Friday, 27 March 2009 2:40 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: [OT] No common sense anymore > > > > > > They're charging a 14yo girl with sending child > pornography > > for sending > > photos of herself. > > > > How ridiculous. > > > > > http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Girl-Charged-With-Child-Porn-for-Postin > > g-Nude-Pics-of-Self.html > > > > > > ************************************************* > > Join the OBAMA RESISTANCE MOVEMENT! > > [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
