snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Non-UL Chat > Police Blotter

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07 December 2013, 05:13 AM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 108,807
Florida Nudist says naked pictures of his daughters are family portraits

A South Florida man is defending himself in court after being charged with taking pornographic photographs of his three young daughters and sharing them by saying that the photos are standard family portraits for a nudist family.

http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/Blog/201...6281383833145/
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07 December 2013, 09:46 PM
Mickey Blue's Avatar
Mickey Blue Mickey Blue is offline
 
Join Date: 01 February 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 17,577
Default

Really opens up the issue of where the line of child pornography is.. I mean from the article it looks like enough other evidence was found to make it looks pretty cut and dry, but what if that other evidence wasn't there? Could anybody taking pictures of naked minors just say that they were clothing optional family photos?

Obviously, even ignoring nudist colonies, pictures of semi-clothed children are probably not uncommon for parents to have (12 is probably older than would be typical to be fair).
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07 December 2013, 09:57 PM
Richard W's Avatar
Richard W Richard W is offline
 
Join Date: 19 February 2000
Location: High Wycombe, UK
Posts: 23,142
Default

One of my friends posted a picture on Facebook (in part of an album) of her three-year-old daughter lying on a bed with her husband, who was smiling and holding a drink. The daughter was naked... I know it was entirely innocent but in a different context it would have looked extremely dodgy! I almost thought of warning her she might want to remove it - she's from a different culture which probably isn't as paranoid about these things.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07 December 2013, 10:02 PM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is online now
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 9,211
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mickey Blue View Post
Really opens up the issue of where the line of child pornography is.. I mean from the article it looks like enough other evidence was found to make it looks pretty cut and dry, but what if that other evidence wasn't there? Could anybody taking pictures of naked minors just say that they were clothing optional family photos?

Obviously, even ignoring nudist colonies, pictures of semi-clothed children are probably not uncommon for parents to have (12 is probably older than would be typical to be fair).
Anybody charged that way could say that, but as this case shows, there are ways of determining whether that's true or not, even for a person living in a clothing optional community. As with any crime, it isn't the case that if the accused can present an innocent explanation the charges automatically won't stick. Juries decide facts like this at trials all the time.

Last edited by erwins; 07 December 2013 at 10:09 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07 December 2013, 10:06 PM
Mickey Blue's Avatar
Mickey Blue Mickey Blue is offline
 
Join Date: 01 February 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 17,577
Default

Brings up the issue of what constitutes harm; if this man had taken the pictures innocently why would there be 'more' harm if he took them for sexual purposes?

If Richard's friend took the picture innocently would there be more 'harm' if the picture were to serve as a sexual aid?


Does what a person does with a picture (privately I mean, not like posting it online or what have you) cause a person 'harm'? Lets say a person had a picture of their ex (taken with consent at the time) that they looked at to get off, would that be some kind of sexual assault because (presumably) the person who originally made the picture would likely no longer be ok with it)?

What if a father takes a completely honest, non sexual, picture of his child in the bath and another person gets a hold of them and uses them to get off.. Is that picture now child pornography?

I'm not in favor of child molesters, but somehow it seems wrong for a photo's 'sexuality' (with regards to whether it counts as child pornography or not) be determined not how it was taken, or who took it, but how it is being used after the fact.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07 December 2013, 10:14 PM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is online now
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 9,211
Default

That's not how it's determined. Under the laws that I'm aware of, the pictures have to be sexual in nature.

And taking or having a naked picture of one's current or ex adult partner isn't any kind of sexual assault.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07 December 2013, 10:53 PM
Kallah's Avatar
Kallah Kallah is offline
 
Join Date: 19 July 2004
Location: Eau Claire, WI
Posts: 2,405
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by erwins View Post
And taking or having a naked picture of one's current or ex adult partner isn't any kind of sexual assault.
Can a person revoke their consent retroactively when it comes to a photograph? If I consent to be photographed naked, and tell my partner he's the only one who has permission to look at that photo, and then he goes and shows it to all his friends*, isn't that a breach of my consent? What if we break up a week after the photo is taken and I tell him I no longer agree to allow him to possess it - am I just out of luck? In a day before digital photography I could have asked for the physical copy back, but even if he swears he deleted it there could be a dozen, or a hundred, or a thousand** copies of that photograph on the internet by the end of that week.

While I don't think it would be sexual assault, it seems like something under-handed is going on there.


*He wouldn't, because he's not an enormous jerk, sorry to use you as an example hun.
**Unlikely, given my looks, but the point remains.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07 December 2013, 11:25 PM
Mickey Blue's Avatar
Mickey Blue Mickey Blue is offline
 
Join Date: 01 February 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 17,577
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by erwins View Post
That's not how it's determined. Under the laws that I'm aware of, the pictures have to be sexual in nature.
How does one define a picture that is sexual in nature? Seems like you'd run into a similar problem as porn where it would be up to some judge to 'know it when s/he sees it"
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08 December 2013, 12:18 AM
Avril's Avatar
Avril Avril is offline
 
Join Date: 07 August 2002
Location: Princeton, NJ
Posts: 9,550
Default

But that's just what you have to do sometimes (and it's not "porn" that gets Potter Stewart's "know it when I see it" test, it's obscenity). If you want to prevent child pornography, you can't just say you don't want people to do XYZ because people will come up with QRS instead and cause just as much harm.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08 December 2013, 12:46 AM
mags's Avatar
mags mags is offline
 
Join Date: 23 February 2006
Location: Springboro, OH
Posts: 5,096
Default

As evidenced by a current movement (well, probably not really new, but it was recently brought to my attention) of people (often parents) taking pictures of prepubescent girls, clothed in underwear and tops and alone in the photos (fortunately), but in the kinds of positions likely to be seen in pornography.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 08 December 2013, 02:54 AM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 19,448
Judge

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mickey Blue View Post
Seems like you'd run into a similar problem as porn where it would be up to some judge to 'know it when s/he sees it"
Isn't that why they're called judges?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nudist dad facing child porn charges says photos are 'family portraits' A Turtle Named Mack Moot Court 0 08 November 2013 01:55 AM
In Revealing Self-Portraits, Body Image Is Front and Center snopes Social Studies 3 29 April 2013 10:46 PM
Man pinned under 3,000-pound tractor saved by teen daughters snopes Crash and Burn 5 11 April 2013 08:42 PM
Naked assailant terrorizes family A Turtle Named Mack Police Blotter 3 24 January 2013 10:08 PM
Woman with 2 wombs delivers twin daughters snopes Medical 2 01 March 2009 02:10 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.