"Child Pornography" Yearbook photo .... Over reaction ?

[gee]

An inappropriate "child pornography" picture published in a Big Bear High School yearbook depicts a 17-year-old male student with his hand inside the clothing of a 15-year-old female student, officials said Thursday.

Cindy Bachman, a spokeswoman for the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department, said the students appear in the background of the photo and "are not the intended focus of the photograph." The picture was taken at a school dance.

However, authorities said they were concerned enough about the picture that they demanded that all Big Bear High School students return their 2011 yearbooks to the school so that the photo can be removed or covered up. They also warned that those possessing the photograph risk criminal charges involving the possession of child pornography.

The school has offered to reimburse students who do not want their yearbooks back.

The picture was brought to the attention of school officials after the yearbook was distributed last week, and they notified the Big Bear Sheriff's Station, which is conducting an investigation.

A detective has contacted both of the students in the photograph, Bachman said.

Calls to the school district were not immediately returned.

[Updated at 2:30 p.m.: Bear Valley Unified School District officials released a statement saying that after learning about the photograph, administrators "immediately stopped distribution and issued a recall of all yearbooks that had been dispersed" and that a replacement page has been ordered.

Officials from both the school and district are also investigating the matter, the statement said, and will "take appropriate action based on their findings."]
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/06/details-emerge-about-child-pornography-yearbook-photo.html

I have a tendency to feel that this is a bit of an over reaction. Since they are not going to show the photo hard to say. What do you guys think?

[62julietandvoid]

This new law or whatever the hell it is, scares me. I am afraid to post some of my baby photos anywhere for fear I might be sexting or some horse shit.

[Saffron]

Unless the girl's tits (or genitalia) were exposed by his hand, it's not pornography. It's also not pornography unless it raises prurient interest.

[walkingeagle]

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1350179

Looks like the cops on this forum don't agree with this either!

[biteme]

Government PC at work, everyone running around covering their ass, if they don't some parent will sue
and collect a huge mountain of money, only in America.
The real problem is the incredibly stupid monetary jury awards
You have to cover your ass or get jury screwed

http://blogs.forbes.com/shenegotiates/2011/06/13/95m-sexual-harassment-award-what-management-can-do/
The ABA Journal reported late last week that a St. Louis federal jury, in what might be a record breaking verdict to a single plaintiff, awarded $95 million in damages to a former Aaron’s Inc. associate for sexual harassment, $15 million in compensatory and $80 million in punitive damages.

[walkingeagle]

They also warned that those possessing the photograph risk criminal charges involving the possession of child pornography.
Given this situation, I find this statement rather strange. Who is reponsible for the distribution of that same picture? There are usually 2 sides to an investigation like this yet they seem to only be chasing the one.

[walkingeagle]

http://www.google.com/search?q=girl+goes+commando+on+picture+day&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1

Here is another one that happened just a short time back. I never did hear what became of it!

[gee]

Given this situation, I find this statement rather strange. Who is reponsible for the distribution of that same picture? There are usually 2 sides to an investigation like this yet they seem to only be chasing the one.

walkingeagle Agreed The school is the one who allowed the picture to get through in the first place. They would need to hold themselves responsible first. Most of all it is just Ridiculous that this made the news, that they are going to such great lengths to get the yearbooks back, and finally making such stupid threats that if not returned you could be facing criminal charges! :hmmmm2::confused2:

[biteme]

Given this situation, I find this statement rather strange. Who is reponsible for the distribution of that same picture? There are usually 2 sides to an investigation like this yet they seem to only be chasing the one.
The school is responsible for distribution and content, that's why they're the ones making all the noise and pointing at everyone that received their profane material :ban::embarassed2::censored: We've all seen how school administrators never take responsibility for anything that happens under their watch, their motto is "close eyes, point and blame"

Wonder if the two kids will get their own reality show? :001_tt2:

[walkingeagle]

According to the article I read earlier, this is not even close to child porn by Federal law. Now IDK anything about the state law on the books, but I'd bet they would have a hard time pushing anything through with this one! I have not seen the pic and have no desire to, but some are saying that the couple are not the main focus of the picture, just merely in the background, and they doubt that anything can really be seen other than a hand, or maybe 2 down her pants/dress.

This looks almost the same as calling cartoon porn the same way.

[Obsolete]

This looks almost the same as calling cartoon porn the same way.

Yes, but cartoon porn depicting minors can be illegal too. People have been convicted for having it on their pc's.

As far as the school, if they hadn't made an issue out of it to begin with, I bet the majority of the kids wouldn't have even noticed the picture.

[walkingeagle]

Yes, but cartoon porn depicting minors can be illegal too. People have been convicted for having it on their pc's.

As far as the school, if they hadn't made an issue out of it to begin with, I bet the majority of the kids wouldn't have even noticed the picture. I have heard that about the cartoon stuff. Mostly in other countries, but I think there was a case here in the states.

[Obsolete]

I have heard that about the cartoon stuff. Mostly in other countries, but I think there was a case here in the states.

I think they are more apt to convict if it's someone who has a previous conviction for sex offense involving minors.

[TheMorningStar]

I miss feeling up my HS g/f :s:

[AngelFire]

This new law or whatever the hell it is, scares me. I am afraid to post some of my baby photos anywhere for fear I might be sexting or some horse shit.

You'd be surprise how many parents still take pics and post them of their lil ones bathing. My family were always doing that, of course with no perverted intentions. I would call them and explain to them why it's not right to post them. Now this story gave me another reason to warn them too.

[Obsolete]

You'd be surprise how many parents still take pics and post them of their lil ones bathing. My family were always doing that, of course with no perverted intentions. I would call them and explain to them why it's not right to post them. Now this story gave me another reason to warn them too.

I remember a Lifetime movie based on a true story about a family who took photos of their babies bathing. They dropped the film off to be developed and the store called the police, the children were taken from the family and placed in foster care...I can't remember how the movie ended but it scared me into never taking bath shots of my kids.

[AngelFire]

Obsolete, not only is that a possibility but pervs also take the pictures for their own filthy pleasure.

I too remember that movie

[Robynne]

I remember a movie just like that, but the pictures were taken while the children were in their underwear jumping on mom's bed.
'Snap Decision' is the one I am talking about.

[malq]

gee
my take on this prolly echo's most everyone else.

The school was negligent on editing literature that will be distributed to the masses. Not only that but as keepsakes for a lifetime.
This was preventable.

it can be successfully argued that those empty threats of charging kids with child porn, and other criminal charges to cover their ass for materials THEY distributed are completely bogus.

Hypothetical Case;
I am an employer, I hand you a pamphlet with an unedited boner in it. I demand it back because I can be sued. Do I have that right?
Hell no! The intent was to distribute that material to you and it wasn't your fault you received it in good faith.

[Tits McGee]

Hypothetical Case;
I am an employer, I hand you a pamphlet with an unedited boner in it. I demand it back because I can be sued. Do I have that right?
Hell no! The intent was to distribute that material to you and it wasn't your fault you received it in good faith.

@malq (http://www.dreamindemon.com/forums/member.php?u=1178)
How is that any different than if the pamphlet was considered a stolen good? Let's say you steal the pamphlet, then give it to me. I can still be arrested for having stolen goods, even though I received it in good faith, can't I? And what about if you handed me a book that contained child pornography. What if I never opened the book and didn't know it was there? Again, I received it in good faith, but that wouldn't stop me from being charged with possession of child pornography.

I'm not saying I agree with the school or that it even is child pornography, but I can see how they can come to the conclusion that the person with the yearbook in their possession could be arrested.

[walkingeagle]

How is that any different than if the pamphlet was considered a stolen good? Let's say you steal the pamphlet, then give it to me. I can still be arrested for having stolen goods, even though I received it in good faith, can't I? And what about if you handed me a book that contained child pornography. What if I never opened the book and didn't know it was there? Again, I received it in good faith, but that wouldn't stop me from being charged with possession of child pornography.

I'm not saying I agree with the school or that it even is child pornography, but I can see how they can come to the conclusion that the person with the yearbook in their possession could be arrested. Even though this was addressed to malq, I think it's rather telling that the school has not been arrested for distribution of this material. Which crime ranks higher here?

[Tits McGee]

Even though this was addressed to malq, I think it's rather telling that the school has not been arrested for distribution of this material. Which crime ranks higher here?

walkingeagle
What "crime" are you referring to? As far as I can tell, so far there's been no crime committed.

The school was made aware of an inappropriate photograph that could possibly be considered pornographic (I haven't seen the picture, so I don't know if it truly would be or not), they told everyone to bring their yearbooks back to either be replaced or refunded, warned them that they could possibly be charged with child pornography if they don't, and asked the Sheriff's office to investigate.

If the Sheriff's department says "Hey, no biggie." then the worst that has happened is that there was an uproar over nothing and no one is out anything (except the school, I suppose, for the cost of reprinting and/or covering the picture in the yearbook). They are not taking back the yearbooks and saying "tough shit" or even forcing people to give them back, they are replacing them or covering up the pic or refunding the money. They will still get one if they want. People will grumble a bit about the bruhaha and call the school dumbasses and life will go on.

If the Sheriff's department says "Whoa! Inappropriate!" then everyone will say the school acted appropriately and people will grumble a bit about the bruhaha and call the school dumbasses and life will still go on. If it is deemed child pornography, will the school get charged? IDK, seems kind of stupid to me, but it could happen. The question I have is if it is deemed child pornography, will the school be forced to turn over a list of everyone who bought the yearbook? Will the police then track them all down and find out if they returned the yearbook for the replacement one or not? Will everyone who didn't get charged with something?

[horsegirl]

That happened to some people near where we lived in London, they got their children back but not before their personal lives were splashed all over the tabloids

[walkingeagle]

walkingeagle
What "crime" are you referring to? As far as I can tell, so far there's been no crime committed.

The school was made aware of an inappropriate photograph that could possibly be considered pornographic (I haven't seen the picture, so I don't know if it truly would be or not), they told everyone to bring their yearbooks back to either be replaced or refunded, warned them that they could possibly be charged with child pornography if they don't, and asked the Sheriff's office to investigate. I am not actually seeing a crime here. Just saying that their threat is empty since they could be charged with distribution.

[Tits McGee]

Ah, I see. Yeah, seems kind of funny. I am, however, impressed that they didn't just try to hide it, and seem to be proactive about it. Personally, I think it's a bunch of hooey over nothing, but now I'm curious to see this picture.

[malq]

@malq (http://www.dreamindemon.com/forums/member.php?u=1178)
How is that any different than if the pamphlet was considered a stolen good? Let's say you steal the pamphlet, then give it to me. I can still be arrested for having stolen goods, even though I received it in good faith, can't I? And what about if you handed me a book that contained child pornography. What if I never opened the book and didn't know it was there? Again, I received it in good faith, but that wouldn't stop me from being charged with possession of child pornography.

I'm not saying I agree with the school or that it even is child pornography, but I can see how they can come to the conclusion that the person with the yearbook in their possession could be arrested.
Tits McGee
Naw, prosecuting someone for a crime involves having some proof a crime has been committed intentionally.
Ii I hand you a stolen pamphlet or a book with porn and you accept with no knowledge a crime is being committed, you have no culpability-Zero

Besides that, Has a crime been commited? bad taste? vulgarity? poor editing? Not enough to ensue legal action IMO

But like you said a post or so later, this is much ado about nothing.

[malq]

I am not actually seeing a crime here. Just saying that their threat is empty since they could be charged with distribution.
walkingeagle
I see what you are saying, Yes of course, they are the ultimate distributors. If I had a yearbook, I would say, what are you going to do?

[Obsolete]

Tits McGee
Naw, prosecuting someone for a crime involves having some proof a crime has been committed intentionally.
Ii I hand you a stolen pamphlet or a book with porn and you accept with no knowledge a crime is being committed, you have no culpability-Zero

Besides that, Has a crime been commited? bad taste? vulgarity? poor editing? Not enough to ensue legal action IMO

But like you said a post or so later, this is much ado about nothing.

malq - That's not true. My husband (boyfriend at the time) and I bought two 4-wheelers when we were teenagers. We bought them from a family in the process of moving to Canada. We were teens and didn't think to get a bill of sale, we handed over cash and they handed over the quads.

A few weeks later cops showed up at my inlaws house and arrested my hubby for posession of stolen property. The asshole family that sold us the quads had stolen them from another neighbor down the street.

Hubby went to jail for the weekend and on Monday when we explained to the judge what happened he dropped the charges to "receiving stolen property". The judge explained that it is a crime to receive, purchase, or possess stolen property, whether you knew it was stolen or not. I remember him saying "Ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law".

Hubby was convicted and the charge was later expunged when he turned 18.

Typically a person is only convicted if it is proven that they knowingly accepted stolen property but there are exceptions.

[walkingeagle]

This has almost happened to me twice. Both times were firearms. I had a friend on the PD here that would run numbers for me when I bought one. Apparently there is a built-in NOGO with some places. They show up stolen, he would come to me, I would show him the BOS, he would pick up the seller, and I heard from one of them that he told them I was going to get him. Every time it came back clean on further checks.

[malq]

malq - That's not true. My husband (boyfriend at the time) and I bought two 4-wheelers when we were teenagers. We bought them from a family in the process of moving to Canada. We were teens and didn't think to get a bill of sale, we handed over cash and they handed over the quads.

A few weeks later cops showed up at my inlaws house and arrested my hubby for posession of stolen property. The asshole family that sold us the quads had stolen them from another neighbor down the street.

Hubby went to jail for the weekend and on Monday when we explained to the judge what happened he dropped the charges to "receiving stolen property". The judge explained that it is a crime to receive, purchase, or possess stolen property, whether you knew it was stolen or not. I remember him saying "Ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law".

Hubby was convicted and the charge was later expunged when he turned 18.

Typically a person is only convicted if it is proven that they knowingly accepted stolen property but there are exceptions.
Obsolete
I stand corrected. there are exceptions. In general if you are acting in good faith you have nothing to worry about. especially in the case of a frickking year book with a racy entry.
Sorry about your malfeasance with the law. That shouldn't be the case but buyer beware....

[Obsolete]

I stand corrected. Faced!


Sorry about your malfeasance with the law. It was bullshit but we learned a valuable lesson :)