17 yr old girl posting erotic pictures

[Restecpa]

I have a question regarding minors posting their pictures on forums. There is this one forum with a section where you can post your picture in order to introduce yourself and see who you are chatting with.

Normally people just post a picture of their face etc, but this one girl posted a few pictures of her ass. It's a very nice one too, however she is 17 (judging by the info she provided) which makes her a minor. Of course other kids are loving it, but what I was wondering is, from the legal perspective, is this legal or not for us to host? Is admin / mod supposed to remove such pictures? Normally I wouldn't think about it as there is no policy against erotic pictures (as long as it's not porn) on that forum, however she is a minor so I thought I'd ask.

It's a forum with a pretty immature audience.. Most people being 15 - 20 I guess.

No body parts such as nipples or "holes" are visible, if this makes any difference.

 

[A D]

Ask the forum owner what they think, its their call.

But we do not accet asstars here. lol

-=DCG=-

 

[Restecpa]

Forum owner is a friend of mine and he asked me to look into this. He said that if it were a 14 yr old girl for example, he would've removed it at once. But since you are allowed to have sex once you're over 16 (in the eyes of the law) and this is far from that, he doesn't find it objectionable. Afterall it's just a few bare ass pics, you can see more flesh if you turn on MTV.

I know we all might have different personal views on this matter, but what I'm really interested in is how this is considered by the law. Thanks

 

[Domagon]

They're in a grey area ... they need to ask themselves "Would the average person consider the ass pictures to have any sexual connotations?"

If any doubt, the pictures should come down.

Nude images of minors are *not* automatically child porn - nudism is legal.

The age of consent, here in the U.S., most often does *not* matter in regards to child porn - for example, in many U.S. states, it's legal for one to have sex with a 16 year old, it's still illegal for them to possess/distribute "sexual poses" of persons under age 18.

But it gets more tricky ... *non*-nude pics of minors can in some instances be considered child porn *depending on intent* ... thought crime has long existed in the U.S. when it comes to child porn, since in some instances, it comes down to the eye of the beholder.

In the particular situation you describe, the biggest threat is likely not the police, etc, but rather the parents of the 17 year old in the pictures possibly finding them and complaining and causing the webmaster grief and hassle.

Ron

 

[GT Web]

But we do not accet asstars here. lol

-=DCG=-

Darn it!

Where do I post the photos of myself then? :cheeky:

 

[jberryhill]

Nude images of minors are *not* automatically child porn - nudism is legal.

Per usual, Ron is correct. Most state laws concerning this subject use words such as "lascivious" to denote images having a primary sexual, rather than purely anatomical or artistic aspect. It is not whether certain naughty bits are show, but how they are shown.

However, given the nature of the forum, and the fact that it may effectively be "present" in several states, your friend is risking extremely serious consequences for what may be a razor thin judgment call. Getting back to "how they are shown", it is not as if you are publishing a textbook on pubescent development. The photograph is part of the entire context in which the commentary accompanying or inspired by the photograph renders the context to be sexually suggestive.

Furthermore, consider 18 USC 2257:

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002257----000-.html

and yes, "other matter" does include the internet. That statute begs the question of what is "sexually explicit conduct". For that we have 18 USC 2256:

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002256----000-.html

2) “sexually explicit conduct” means actual or simulated—

(A) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;
(B) bestiality;
(C) masturbation;
(D) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(E) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;

After wading through all of that, say to your friend, "Hey, what's the worst thing that can happen? The maximum federal penalty for a violation defined by all that verbiage is only two years."

You want the short answer? Take it down.

 

[fryman04]

I guess the only way we can figure this out is if you post a link to the picture...

 

[Domagon]

I think I found the pics ... only took a few minutes of searching ... assuming the forum name start with an "E", the user name begin with a "S", and it's three pics you're referring to (in first post of the thread) - pretty sure I found them ... in addition, the thread there has turned into a legal discussion similar to that in to this thread.

Assuming for a moment I've found the correct thread, my *layman's* opinion is that they are not child porn; law enforcement would very likely not concern themselves with the images in any event - they're very tame and similar to what one sometimes sees on TV or at the beach.

To be clear, I'm not totally certain I've found the correct images, but if I have, the webmaster doesn't have much to fear at the moment, but at minimum keep an eye on the situation; ideally delete the images so as to discourage others from posting similar images of minors themselves leading to more explicit images, etc ... that's when the webmaster will have to truly worry - better for them to forestall problems now by being proactive in such situations - ie. deleting/restricting posting of such images.

Ron

 

[Restecpa]

I think I found the pics ... only took a few minutes of searching ... assuming the forum name start with an "E", the user name begin with a "S", and it's three pics you're referring to (in first post of the thread) - pretty sure I found them ... in addition, the thread there has turned into a legal discussion similar to that in to this thread.

Assuming for a moment I've found the correct thread, my *layman's* opinion is that they are not child porn; law enforcement would very likely not concern themselves with the images in any event - they're very tame and similar to what one sometimes sees on TV or at the beach.

To be clear, I'm not totally certain I've found the correct images, but if I have, the webmaster doesn't have much to fear at the moment, but at minimum keep an eye on the situation; ideally delete the images so as to discourage others from posting similar images of minors themselves leading to more explicit images, etc ... that's when the webmaster will have to truly worry - better for them to forestall problems now by being proactive in such situations - ie. deleting/restricting posting of such images.

Ron

Yes Ron, that's the forum I'm refering to. Thanks for your understanding and not posting the url here (thus respecting webmasters privacy) I was asked not to disclose the url, at least not until this issue is taken care of.

There are 2 more pictures in that very thread - pages number 3 and 4, if you don't mind checking them out and giving your opinion whether those seem "worse" than the first 3.

I greatly appreciate your insight, as well as John Berryhills contribution, who gave me some very interesting information and references for further reading. Thank you both!

 

[Domagon]

Saw those pics as well - that's where the "esculation" part I speak of comes in ... over time, if left unchecked, folks will likely post more explicit images and that's more likely when the forum is going to run into serious legal problems.

As of now, in my *layman's* opinion, none of the pics are clear-cut child porn in themselves ... they could possibly be construed by some to be; "soft" child porn, in particular, is highly subjective.

In a nutshell, the webmaster(s) of that forum, in my layman's opinion, don't need to necessarily delete the pics at this very moment, but should definitely be on the look out for much such pics, especially if more explicit - that's when they will have to take some action for sure.

With that said, many folks will suggest, and rightly so, the easy, "safe" answer of the webmaster deleting the pics; for completeness, deleting her faceshot(s) she posted in other thread(s) in the past.

As of now, I don't see it as a panic situation, but one that at minimum should be monitored by the webmaster, in particular, more similar/more explicit postings.

Ron

 

[jberryhill]

Assuming for a moment I've found the correct thread, my *layman's* opinion is that they are not child porn; law enforcement would very likely not concern themselves with the images in any event - they're very tame and similar to what one sometimes sees on TV or at the beach.

There is a world of other issues. Younger sibling tells mom or dad... mom or dad go ballistic...

Bottom line, you're dealing with minors. If you draw a clear line well above the level of potential trouble, then you can avoid subjective line drawing issues later on.

But since you are allowed to have sex once you're over 16 (in the eyes of the law)

Stay out of Delaware.

 

[actnow]

If there is this much "yes, no or maybe",
I would pull the pictures and error on the side of caution.

As John mentioned, all you need is for the parents to go ballistic.
Then, you might have civil and criminal action.

And, Since the whois info is public knowledge. Do you want to take that
one chance in a million that the father might coming looking for the owner?

Ok. That is all of the negatives.

Now, what is the upside advantage of keeping the pictures on the site?

 

[Restecpa]

I agree, there is really no upside as far as keeping them goes. Apart from free speech rights and ones right to post whatever he/she wants as long as it's not against forums TOS. While child porn is definatelly not allowed and would not be tollerated, I wanted opinions on this - whether this could be considered this way or not. It was nothing horrible if you ask me, yet some might not see it that way. What I really care about is law though.

Thread has been locked now and will probably be moved to a mod only area instead of being deleted, just so we can keep track of things in case we need it for any future reference.

Thanks for all the helpful comments people!

 

[domaindirk]

In matters such as this of this, I find that the answer is already found by the very reason for the question. And, that the individual asking the question usually knows the answer, but is looking for confirmation.

DD

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

Most states allow sex at 16, so assuming this is one of those states, Your Daddy's suggestion is: just have sex with those 16 and 17 year olds, but don't take pictures!

 

[mike031]

Most states allow sex at 16, so assuming this is one of those states, Your Daddy's suggestion is: just have sex with those 16 and 17 year olds, but don't take pictures!

oh man.. you crack me up k:

 

[MediaHound]

dont egg him on MC

 

[Steen]

Your Daddy's suggestion is: just have sex with those 16 and 17 year olds, but don't take pictures!

Perhaps I'm the only one, but I don't find that clever at all. Must be my lack of comprehension.

 

[MediaHound]

no your not, look up

 

[izoot]

Most states allow sex at 16, so assuming this is one of those states, Your Daddy's suggestion is: just have sex with those 16 and 17 year olds, but don't take pictures!

Hal..you never cease to amaze me with your posts.

Thats a great idea..support adults having sex with 16 year olds " just leave no evidence...apparently you have no children of your own to worry about...that or your a friend of Michael Jackson's.