Federal Judge Rules Non-Nude Content = Porn

[Lee]

SALT LAKE CITY A federal judge has ruled that nudity isn’t necessary for photographs of scantily clad children to be considered pornographic.

U.S. District Judge Tena Campbell rejected the arguments of Charles Granere and Matthew Duhamel, who are both charged with transportation, receipt and possession of child pornography in connection with operating a Web site that showed images of young girls in suggestive poses.

Federal agents estimated between 2,000 to 3,000 people paid $22 a month to access photos on the Web site.

Granere and Duhamel sought to have the case against them thrown out, arguing that the models on their Web site, mainly 9- and 10-year-old girls, were not nude.

According to charging documents, one photo of a 9-year-old girl shows her dressed in “black stiletto pumps, a black lace thong, black bra, and black jacket” sitting on a dining room table.

In court Friday, attorney Richard Mauro argued that nudity must be a requirement to consider an image pornographic. Mauro pointed to works of art and advertising as examples.

“Where would Fredericks’ of Hollywood be without their ads?” noted Campbell, accepting his point.

Assistant U.S. District Attorney Karin Fojtik said Congress made it clear that nudity does not have to be present to consider something pornographic.

“The big difference is these are children,” Fojtik said.

Campbell said the law is clear in not requiring nudity under the definition of pornography. She added the determination of whether the images on Granere and Duhamel’s Web site were pornographic should be made by a jury.

At the time the site was operating, Granere was president of his own Internet company. Duhamel is best known for briefly working as a weather forecaster for KUTV Channel 2 under the name Matt McCoy. More recently, Duhamel hosted a local, late-night talk show on KPNZ Channel 24.

Campbell said she plans to issue a written ruling, further outlining her decision.

After the hearing, Mauro said he will wait to see Campbell’s written ruling before decided whether to appeal.

http://kutv.com/topstories/local_story_281174135.html

Interesting stuff for sure, i can see why he made the ruling however, im now wondering if this is going to have a knock-on effect in relation to 2257 regulations for those of us that run legal adult businesses?

Regards,

Lee

[1stdave]

Strange ruling. But I am glad to see it. 9 yrs old WTF

[basschick]

i'm NOT glad to see it.

i despise those kid sites however a ruling that defines porn as a fully dressed person who isn't doing anything sexual isn't a good thing for anyone.

[Lee]

i despise those kid sites however a ruling that defines porn as a fully dressed person who isn't doing anything sexual isn't a good thing for anyone.

Agreed.

It looks like this judge took the easiest way out to get a guilty verdict in the case, redefining what 'porn' is instead of asking for new laws to be written which, is what any sane person would do.

Regards,

Lee

[1stdave]

the blurring between legal porn and illegal porn as a side effect is bad. im just really against children being exploited like that.

let me withdraw that comment

[chadknowslaw]

I think this was a judge that didn't have the balls to rule the right way and say a child that is not nude is not porn. He just ruled that way so it can either (1) get appealed and the Appeals Court will take the heat for letting the unhealthy (but not law breaking) man go free or else (2) the bad man goes to jail and nobody really sheds a tear. Civil liberties be damned.

[hunkhunter]

What happens when you allow an idiot to appoint other idiots to the bench.

[Squirt]

Here in Australia they had problems with perverts taking pictures of the kids in their speedos and swimsuits at swim meets and on the beach, then posting them to pay websites.

Now many city councils have made it illegal for ANYONE to take photos at the beach or sporting events, even of your own children, without written permission first. I'd rather have a law shutting down those websites, then a law prohibiting me from taking family photos at events and public places.

One has to ask themselves what message is being sent to the children in this case that are made to dress up and pose suggestively. The sexualization of children, whether dressed or not, is not acceptable to the vast majority of people in American society. The sexual arena is a place for adults, not children. It will be interesting to see what becomes of this.

[hdkbill]

It's also intersting to note that the Judge was a "she" and this took place in Salt Lake City, Utah.

Certainly this will be appealed and win on appeal. My gawd, you'd hope so. How can it be pornography when they have clothes on, regardless of age?

Bill