Federal Judge Rules Non-Nude Content = Porn

[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