Comments on: Judge Puts Teen Sexting Case on Hold - Tells Prosecutor Naked Teens on Cell Phones is Not Porn http://www.theinternetpatrol.com/judge-puts-teen-sexting-case-on-hold-tells-prosecutor-naked-teens-on-cell-phones-is-not-porn/ Internet Safety, Windows Updates, Internet News, and More Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:44:00 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: SG http://www.theinternetpatrol.com/judge-puts-teen-sexting-case-on-hold-tells-prosecutor-naked-teens-on-cell-phones-is-not-porn/#comment-1043667 SG Sat, 20 Jun 2009 20:23:45 +0000 http://www.theinternetpatrol.com/?p=2396#comment-1043667 There was this one fellow at work who had new pictures all the time of teen? girls/young women nude from the waist up. These were his real life girlfriends. There was this one fellow at work who had new pictures all the time of teen? girls/young women nude from the waist up. These were his real life girlfriends.

]]> By: lee http://www.theinternetpatrol.com/judge-puts-teen-sexting-case-on-hold-tells-prosecutor-naked-teens-on-cell-phones-is-not-porn/#comment-998643 lee Sat, 04 Apr 2009 02:16:37 +0000 http://www.theinternetpatrol.com/?p=2396#comment-998643 If the prosecutor thinks that's "provocative", then maybe law enforcement should take a trip to his house and take a look at what he has on his computer.... anyway,as I recall from a long time ago,to be "pornograghy" it has to have an actual sex act in it. anything else is just nudity,which is not illegal. It doesn't sound like these pictures were either! Plus in the case of the "lavacious acts", well lavacious means "the flushing/draining of an organ" so i dunno if that quite qualifies either. hacking up some Flem from ones lungs could be considered a lavacious act really. thats the trouble nowadays, over zealous prosecutors want to call most ANYTHING pornography just to try to make a name for themselves. a guy in the city where I live was arrested and charged with child pornography because he took "family pictures" of his 2 little kids playing in the bath tub!! how silly. But i'm sure it must have ruined his reputation, made him lose his job, and friends, which probably sent him into financial ruin,especially after the lawyers fees. And there is no redress,no fixing this wrong, being found not guilty won't help him any, because the damage had already been done. If the prosecutor thinks that’s “provocative”, then maybe law enforcement should take a trip to his house and take a look at what he has on his computer….
anyway,as I recall from a long time ago,to be “pornograghy” it has to have an actual sex act in it. anything else is just nudity,which is not illegal. It doesn’t sound like these pictures were either! Plus in the case of the “lavacious acts”, well lavacious means “the flushing/draining of an organ” so i dunno if that quite qualifies either. hacking up some Flem from ones lungs could be considered a lavacious act really. thats the trouble nowadays, over zealous prosecutors want to call most ANYTHING pornography just to try to make a name for themselves. a guy in the city where I live was arrested and charged with child pornography because he took “family pictures” of his 2 little kids playing in the bath tub!! how silly. But i’m sure it must have ruined his reputation, made him lose his job, and friends, which probably sent him into financial ruin,especially after the lawyers fees. And there is no redress,no fixing this wrong, being found not guilty won’t help him any, because the damage had already been done.

]]> By: Bob. http://www.theinternetpatrol.com/judge-puts-teen-sexting-case-on-hold-tells-prosecutor-naked-teens-on-cell-phones-is-not-porn/#comment-998531 Bob. Fri, 03 Apr 2009 18:38:26 +0000 http://www.theinternetpatrol.com/?p=2396#comment-998531 I beleive the prosectors should be forced to take a no expenses payed schooling at the Larry Flynn and Hugh Hefner school of what is and is not Pornography. :-) I beleive the prosectors should be forced to take a no expenses payed schooling at the Larry Flynn and Hugh Hefner school of what is and is not Pornography.

:-)

]]> By: Dallman Ross http://www.theinternetpatrol.com/judge-puts-teen-sexting-case-on-hold-tells-prosecutor-naked-teens-on-cell-phones-is-not-porn/#comment-998432 Dallman Ross Fri, 03 Apr 2009 10:58:26 +0000 http://www.theinternetpatrol.com/?p=2396#comment-998432 Great - love it! However, I have to quibble with the citation to Justice Stewart. He was speaking (in a concurrence opinion to the 1964 case JACOBELLIS v. OHIO) about *obscenity*, not merely pornography. Obscenity is what is wholly unprotected by the first amendment. Great - love it! However, I have to quibble with the citation to Justice Stewart. He was speaking (in a concurrence opinion to the 1964 case JACOBELLIS v. OHIO) about *obscenity*, not merely pornography. Obscenity is what is wholly unprotected by the first amendment.

]]> By: Mike J. http://www.theinternetpatrol.com/judge-puts-teen-sexting-case-on-hold-tells-prosecutor-naked-teens-on-cell-phones-is-not-porn/#comment-997186 Mike J. Wed, 01 Apr 2009 07:44:23 +0000 http://www.theinternetpatrol.com/?p=2396#comment-997186 I've seen an episode on the Tyra Banks show that tackled about Sexting. It was shocking to know that minors are fond of doing this kind behavior. They say they do because they want some boys to like them...which is a very lame reason. I’ve seen an episode on the Tyra Banks show that tackled about Sexting. It was shocking to know that minors are fond of doing this kind behavior. They say they do because they want some boys to like them…which is a very lame reason.

]]>