On TV.com: TOP 15: Greatest Opening TITLE SEQUENCES
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 6 of 43:
Next »
« Previous
Unimportant in this case though, isn't it?
Of course any child porn/not child porn classification based purely on the intent of the creator has the risk of misinterpreting that intent.

But firstly, I agree with your statement that child porn advertised/sold as such must be obvious in its nature in order to actually get on the market, get sold, and then, in this particular case, there couldn't be any doubts, could there?

No matter possible later use (BF being angry or showing off after split-up etc), at this point in time with all the information the court had, the jury must have known that no publication was intended when the pictures were taken. And if decisions are being made based on possible later problems, something seems rather wrong to me. Or would you, to give an extreme example, castrate every male in that state in order to prevent him ever raping someone?
Posted by: klinke   Posted on: 02/10/07 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use
Reply to Story Reply to Message

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

I guess common sense has no place in the courtroom..  jakex3@... | 02/09/07
Here is the thing...  nucrash | 02/09/07
There was a case several years ago  voska | 02/09/07
I do worry about the standard of intent or thought police.  Laff | 02/09/07
Tha's the problem  voska | 02/09/07
Unimportant in this case though, isn't it?  klinke | 02/10/07
I'm always upset with the concept of using others lives  Laff | 02/09/07
Yeah that's silly  voska | 02/09/07
Interesting...  Laff | 02/09/07
That's the point  voska | 02/09/07
Always a brides maid....never a bride. Sigh.  Laff | 02/09/07
That may be true.  alphawiz | 02/12/07
Technophobic Judges  letsgetstoked | 02/09/07
remove them  theball | 02/12/07
Judges need restraint  ken-sullivan@... | 02/09/07
They have to show how they earn their wages  rdelaplaza | 02/13/07
Absurd ruling/law if I ever heard one....  shawkins | 02/09/07
So if I am 16 years old, male or female, and...  Beat a Dead Horse | 02/09/07
Ya, right  brandonspopo | 02/12/07
What about the kiddy pictures  RIAAsucks | 02/09/07
My thoughts also  SC-man | 02/09/07
Kiddy Pics  brandonspopo | 02/12/07
It's Florida folks...  pgm554 | 02/09/07
So its ok?  brandonspopo | 02/12/07
soo sad..  Been_Done_Before | 02/09/07
Yeah perhaps but in the end so?  Laff | 02/09/07
What about girls  brandonspopo | 02/12/07
More like...  SpikeyMike | 02/09/07
Off topic  SpikeyMike | 02/09/07
Witch hunt...  bobsc1@... | 02/09/07
Simple, sue the court  Boot_Agnostic | 02/12/07
Courts and Child Porn  brandonspopo | 02/12/07
Child Porn  jimbo48_z | 02/12/07
Laws Governing Minors...  conspicuouschick | 02/13/07
What it comes down to  edjcox@... | 02/12/07
YES  SillyDog | 02/12/07
Isn't a criminal record more damaging to these kids than naked photos?  bkshort@... | 02/12/07
of all the brain-damaged ideas...  case42tlc | 02/12/07
Here's two to grow on  Boot_Agnostic | 02/13/07
Florida  GrumpyOldMan | 02/13/07
Kids 15 and 14 : It happened "On March 25, 2004"  rdelaplaza | 02/13/07
not sure about that....  conspicuouschick | 02/13/07
other side of the fence  ttocsmij | 02/13/07

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement
advertisement

SmartPlanet

Click Here