make sure your daughters wear panties for their yearbook photo!

[DinoDoc]

Here's more pics:

[Wezil]

The cat was out of the bag so to speak by the time anyone noticed. I hardly think its a legal issue if the girl refused to cross her legs.

So child porn is okay so long as it is poor quality and accidental?

I'm not blaming the photographer or even the editors for this happening. Once it has happened however I can't see how the school could make a decision to continue distributing it anyway. Particularly if the girl has objected and is claiming to be victimized by this. Most jurisdictions have laws concerning the distribution of pictures containing naked minors. It's not a risk I'd want to take.

[DinoDoc]

So child porn is okay so long as it is poor quality and accidental?

Hey, I'd be fine with snatching the yearbooks out of the kids hands because that is when the school found out about it as long as the girl's family paid for the reprints. I fail to see why the school should be punished for the teen's actions.

[Wezil]

I DanS'd you.

Hey, I'd be fine with snatching the yearbooks out of the kids hands because that is when the school found out about it as long as the girl's family paid for the reprints. I fail to see why the school should be punished for the teen's actions.

I don't think I have an argument with you on that.

[DinoDoc]

Particularly if the girl has objected and is claiming to be victimized by this.

Given the pics she had on her webpage, I fail to see how anyone could take that claim seriously.

[Wezil]

Given the pics she had on her webpage, I fail to see how anyone could take that claim seriously.

It doesn't really matter if a child porn "victim" consents, objects or is unaware of the photos for criminal purposes. I just throw that out there for civil considerations.

[DinoDoc]

It doesn't really matter if a child porn "victim" consents, objects or is unaware of the photos for criminal purposes. I just throw that out there for civil considerations.

How on earth could you even begin to make a criminal case out of this?

[Kuciwalker]

The issue is whether or not the exposed crotch of a 16 year old is visible in the photo. I haven't seen the unblurred photo to have an opinion. It is curious however that the video link would find it necessary to blur the image...

No, the issue is whether it's pornography. Nudity is not the legal standard for determining whether something is child porn.

[Wezil]

How on earth could you even begin to make a criminal case out of this?

This is getting tedious.

Last time - If they continue to distribute a yearbook that they know contains the photo of a 16 year old's naked crotch I think they are treading on thin ice.

Once again, I am not concerned with the initial release of the yearbooks to the senior class. I will take the school at their word that they did not realise the problem at that point. They do know now.

[Wezil]

No, the issue is whether it's pornography. Nudity is not the legal standard for determining whether something is child porn.

I'm sure that is something that varies by jurisdiction. I know nothing about the laws in the applicable state.


edit - A "what if"

I'm in the backyard taking pictures of my pets and I accidentally catch the 16 year old neighbour girl sunbathing topless in one of my photos. I then post my pet photos online unaware of the topless girl in the corner of one picture. At some later point the girl contacts me to point out the problem. I continue to keep the photo online. Am I in trouble?

[Kuciwalker]

In the States, a law banning all nude photographs of under-18s would be unconstitutionally broad, IIRC.

[Az]

If this is the photo in question, I seriously don't understand wtf.

[Traianvs]

People take pottery class out there in high school?? No surprise this no-brainer chick decided it was a good idea not to wear underwear for a yearbook pic

[Wezil]

In the States, a law banning all nude photographs of under-18s would be unconstitutionally broad, IIRC.

And my "what if"?

Amend the analogy if you like but I find your answer unconstitutionally broad.

[Dis]

I thought any nude or semi nude image of anyone under 18 was child porn. There was a big child porn thing in the 90's Clinton pushed. And it's in there I think.