@nypj, I am not saying you’re wrong, but I know of businesses that use jammers. I bought one myself at a bazaar here in Michigan where I live. They’ve been selling them for years and I use mine when I am at the movies so folks won’t babble on their cell phones. In Ann Arbor during a concert earlier this year, I know that the theatre had one operating because I could not place a call even while I was near the front door. After the concert was over, I was able to place a call anywhere in the building.
Schools would probably opt for using them if weren’t for the parents not liking it.

Cell phone jammers are legal. But when I was a kid, you weren’t allowed to bring walkmans and electronics to school. they warned people REPEATEDLY and tod parents the otems would be confiscated and locked in the vault until the end of the school year. those devices were practicaly out-dated 9 months later and students and parents HOWLED. But the schools were not fooling back then. they should do the same thing here. AND they should start charging students for this “I’ll show you mine” behavior. NOT just the boys, but the girls should be seriously punished. This is WAY not cool and is a huge cultural problem.

I think that you may need the laws concerning child pornography if you believe that ANY nude to topless photograph of someone under 18 years old is considered child pornography.

These laws are in place to punish people who actually produce, distribute, and possess images and videos of children being sexually exploited. They are also carefully crafted as to prevent parents from being convicted for taking nude baby photos.

In your mind depiction of nudity would be considered pornography. Why are you so ashamed of the human form? There are many artistic displays of nudity, many in museums around the world would you consider all of that pornography also?

No one on here has seen the images that this girl took (hopefully no one has) so none of us would be able to judge if these were tasteful nudes or pornography.

To your question of if I would want my daughter, if I had one, to take and post images like this – NO I would not and I would hope that I would raise my children to understand the dangers of such actions on their future. But that does not change the legal definition of pornography

*many need to read

You don’t have to believe it for it to be true. Get a damned dictionary – and read it.

To nypj: Read them, and I did attempt to post a response last week, but it didn’t make it to the page—probably too long.

You are making this a simple case of defining the law without any sense of judgment and interpretation. It’s much more complicated that that, I’m afraid.

[BTW, I’m not in any way ashamed of the human form. I believe it is to be respected.]

But if you look at an excerpt of the laws, you will see that these laws are open to interpretation. And with interpretation, we’re talking about judgments as to what is considered explicit and obscene.

The laws state that full-blown images of genitalia are not pornographic unless something obscene or explicit is being done with said genitalia—an action of sort that either IS sexual or that simulates a sexual act. Therefore, any person in possession of a photograph of an underage person’s genitalia is not in possession of child pornography, as long as there is no explicit or obscene action taking place in said image. I believe this is also your interpretation since you mention that these may be “tasteful” images. Taste is a matter of interpretation and the contextual position of the observer.

(con’t) My interpretation is a little different: An image of underage genitalia is explicit and obscene except in the case of its application for medical use. There seems no other need to see underage genitalia whether engaged in an activity or not.

How one interprets any situation has much to do with the context in which the observer finds him or herself. A photo of an underage child showing his or her genitalia in their entirety (with nothing else touching said parts) is allowable under these laws. Would you agree if that child were your son/daughter? Or does your sense of judgment change when you’re close to the case?

(con’t) Now to address your comment on art–art, in general, is best approached with a sense of education and discrimination in order to fully appreciate it. That’s not to say that one cannot enjoy art without being educated about art. But to simply pass off a naked body as an art object to justify intent for passing the image around is irresponsible and completely without context. Nudity in art exists to study form and function or to illicit a response (hopefully, an intelligent one) to said form and function. Once you cross the line of intent in so-called art, it ceases to be art anymore. It’s soft porn. The problem here is that you cannot legislate intent any more than you can legislate judgment of what is obscene or explicit. Judgment is interpretation that is left up to the courts. The law gives you guidelines—it isn’t scripture.

Brian Newton–You are making assertions about how “what parents want” dictates what schools do. Just because you believe it doesn’t make it true. Get some damned experience as a school administrator before you spew your comments.

“The laws state that full-blown images of genitalia are not pornographic unless something obscene or explicit is being done with said genitalia”
NOT correct – if the main focus of the image is the genitalia or sexual organs, then the image would be considered pornographic… if the image is taken in an unnatural, or provocative pose then it is pornographic..

if the image is of her just standing there naked, then in all likely hood it is not obscene, or pornographic… if she photographed herself with her legs spread, or bent over then they could be considered pornographic.

i am not sure why you are so shameful of the human form where you feel that any image depicting nudity is pornography.

as i stated, i would not want a relative taking or posting photos like this, but that does not change the legal definition of what can and what can not be considered pornography.

“An image of underage genitalia is explicit and obscene except in the case of its application for medical use”
1 – i disagree that it is obscene or explicit just because it is an image of someone under some arbitrarily set age – so after a certain age the obscenity just vanishes for you?
2- who is to determine what a medical use for the image is?
did your parents never take a photograph of you as a child where you might not have had anything on? or perhaps you of your children if you have any? do you consider that pornography?

there is a reason why nudity does not equal pornography…

one more point to make..
when have you ever known the legal system to not seek prosecution for a crime?

since they have not attempted to prosecute anyone it is obvious that the images in question would not stand up to the legal definition of child pornography..

To nypj:
“ ‘The laws state that full-blown images of genitalia are not pornographic unless something obscene or explicit is being done with said genitalia’
“NOT correct – if the main focus of the image is the genitalia or sexual organs, then the image would be considered pornographic… if the image is taken in an unnatural, or provocative pose then it is pornographic..

Actually, what you posted is incorrect. The laws state that depiction cannot “lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” One can assume that if the image has “serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value,” it is not considered pornography. Many photographs depicting medical conditions of genital organs are perfectly permissible for medical (scientific) reasons. See: http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/PageServlet?PageId=1504

“if the image is of her just standing there naked, then in all likely hood it is not obscene, or pornographic… if she photographed herself with her legs spread, or bent over then they could be considered pornographic.”
According to a literal interpretation of the law, you are correct. But what is your interpretation of “just standing there?” Are we going to take into account what expression she has on her face? What if she were just innocently standing there and you could see parts of her that were not intended to be seen? Would that suddenly become pornographic? As I’ve said, this is all open for interpretation in the court system.

Are citizens allowed to walk about the streets completely naked or would they be stopped by law enforcement for “creating a disturbance” or “public nudity?” I am not ashamed of the human body, as you once again are asserting. I have stated the contrary. Now is society ashamed of the human body? That’s up for debate, but why would there be laws about public nudity if it was not so? Perhaps it’s not a case of shame–there are social structures in a society that one cannot ignore.

Nobody is comparing a middle school female with a naked baby. You cannot legislate intent (however there are some laws that use intent to commit them as their opening), but you also have to be reasonable as to at what age public decency becomes an issue. Certainly, no one is going to arrest a baby for public nudity. Does the law dictate an age for when a person’s nudity becomes “public nudity?”

“1 – i disagree that it is obscene or explicit just because it is an image of someone under some arbitrarily set age – so after a certain age the obscenity just vanishes for you?” Actually, obscenity is obscenity and pornography is pornography. The law is supposed to protect underage people from being victims of pornography. Your point is not germane to the argument.

“2- who is to determine what a medical use for the image is?” The medical professionals.

“did your parents never take a photograph of you as a child where you might not have had anything on? or perhaps you of your children if you have any? do you consider that pornography?
there is a reason why nudity does not equal pornography…” Yes and you are comparing a middle school female to a baby. At what age do you consider private to be private?

“one more point to make..
when have you ever known the legal system to not seek prosecution for a crime?
since they have not attempted to prosecute anyone it is obvious that the images in question would not stand up to the legal definition of child pornography..”
Haven’t you ever heard of cases being settled out of court? Have you ever heard of plea bargains? Just because you haven’t heard of a case brought into court by prosecutors does not mean you know what happened in this case.

she sent them and expected what? PLEASE she knew what she was doing. children arent as dumb as parents want them to be

In order for pictures to be considered porn the child must be performing some type of sexual or simulated act, otherwise it is just a picture. The courts have ruled on this over-and-over again. Just having pictures of naked children isn’t enough for a charge.