The State of Florida vs George Zimmerman: The Trial

Sure Bill, deflect from how you know they were porn. I can find instances of naked pictures of underage females and it wasn't considered porn.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2244168/posts


Grandma Arrested for Child Porn (bathtub photos of granddaughter)
Reason ^ | May 4, 2009 | Radley Balko
Posted on 5/4/2009 7:53:16 PM by ellery

Back in 2005, a WalMart worker in Pennsylvania reported 59-year-old Donna Dull to local authorities after Dull dropped off some film that included shots of her three-year-old granddaughter in and just out of the bath. Dull was arrested—roughly, she says—and charged with producing and distributing child pornography. The charges were dropped 15 months later when a Pennsylvania special prosecutor overruled the local DA. Only Dull, her attorney, and police and prosecutors have apparently seen the photos, which are now under seal. She's now suing.

In this follow-up article from the York Daily Record, state officials seem to be trying to reassure parents and grandparents that they have nothing to worry about—that you needn't fret about having your life ruined and reputation destroyed by false child porn charges for taking nude pictures of your infant or toddler. Problem is, their reassurances aren't very convincing.

Christopher Moore, a special prosecutor in the York County District Attorney's Office, is after "perverts, not parents."

Moore was commenting on the "gray area" between the typical family picture of the 2-year-old getting a bath in the kitchen sink and a picture a pedophile may enjoy.

It can be the same picture, Moore said.

But, Moore added, that is not a reason for parents and grandparents to avoid taking those pictures...

"It's not what the (child protection) law was designed for. Your rights are not restricted in any form by the law."

But it appears that's precisely what Dull was arrested for. And the DA in Dull's case insists he was right. Or at least he's pretty sure he was:

[District Attorney] Rebert said in Dull's case, "What made them offensive was their graphic nature. A little girl with her bare butt showing, kind of looking over her shoulder.

"It's a difficult distinction to make. What's a cute butt and what's pornographic?

"I think what she (Dull) did was stupid and in very poor judgment. It was an interesting case and I think we did the right thing."

So because the photo could have been interpreted as pornographic by someone who was looking for child porn, arresting the woman and ruining her life (or at least severely disrupting it) was the "right thing" to do. From the description, we aren't talking about splayed legs or exposed genitalia, here. It's a kid's butt, and a playful peer over the shoulder. I'm glad Special Prosecutor Moore overruled District Attorney Rebert, but that Dull was arrested in the first place puts the lie to Moore's assertion that this sort of hysteria "is not a reason for parents and grandparents to avoid taking those pictures." It most certainly is. Or at least getting them printed somewhere outside your home. Unless you consider an arrest and 15 months under the label of "accused child pornographer" to be harmless.

It only gets more confusing from there. Here's the prosecutor who initially approved the charges against Dull:

David Cook, now in private practice . . . declined to say if he disagreed with Rebert's decision to dismiss the charges.

He did say, "There was no legitimate purpose for those photographs. I would never pose my daughter or my step-daughter like that.

"It kind of boils down to a gut feeling. If it feels wrong, it probably is."

That sounds . . . ambiguous. How are Pennsylvania residents supposed to follow the law if the state's prosecutors can't even agree on its application?

Here, once again, is Special Prosecutor Moore, again trying to alleviate fears of parents, and again coming up short:

"It's a subjective versus objective standard," Moore said. "You think it's cute. Someone else might think different. That doesn't make it a crime.

"Lots of sexual offenders use the Sears catalog to get off. That doesn't make (the catalog) illegal."

"It's a reasonable person standard with the reasonable person being a juror," Boyles said.

"And reasonable people can disagree," Moore said. "That's the gray area. That's when it comes to us."

Boyles and Moore also agreed that parents don't need to worry unnecessarily.

"Family pictures are family pictures," Boyles said.

"But if more of your pictures of your kids are of them naked rather than clothed, you might have a problem."

So in sum, if you don't want to get arrested and charged for taking nude photos of your infant or toddler, make sure you know what criteria your local prosecutor uses when navigating that "gray area" between a cute butt and a criminally alluring one (note: you probably don't want to actually pose this question to him). Also, if you find yourself under investigation after dropping off a roll of film at the CVS, you might want to bake the prosecutor some cookies, since it appears that his "gut" will be the final arbiter of whether you're a doting parent or an accused child pornographer.

Finally, even if the nude photos you've taken of your kids pass the clear-as-mud "cute butt," "gut feeling," and "reasonable people can disagree/that's when it comes to us" tests, and are deemed innocent as a basket of puppies, you could still be in violation of the law if the state determines that the clothed to unclothed-but-innocent ratio in your family photo albums is inappropriate.

Got all that? Good.

Because they promise, you really have nothing to worry about.

TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatis

http://human-stupidity.com/stupid-dogma/child-porn-witch-hunt/reported-accidentally-downloaded-child-porn-computer-taken-for-a-year-need-supervision-to-see-own-child

Reported accidentally downloaded child porn: computer taken for a year, needs supervision to see own child

A man who informed police when he found child abuse images on his computer has not been allowed to be alone with his daughter for four months. Nigel Robinson from Hull said he called police after trying to download music but instead finding pornographic images on his laptop last November. As a result social services said he "should not have unsupervised access with his own or other children". [...]
When his wife works late, as regularly happens, Mr Robinson’s daughter goes to his mother-in-law’s home.
nigel_robinson reported child porn accidentally foundNigel Robinson can not be alone with his child. And his laptop taken away for a year. Quite disruptive.

The police took the laptop away for investigation and said it could be a year before it is returned, Mr Robinson said. Council bans daughter contact over

Take note another cop was shot and killed doing the same thing within months of Zimmerman arrested, when other law enforcement officers did not know he was an officer.

In that case the court ruled it wasn't porn. Geez Bill. That PROVES that naked pictures of underage females are not always porn.

how is Zimmerman supposed to have guess that the person in plain cloth that were roughly handling a friend happen to be a cop?

Seems that Zimmerman have no reason to assume that the person assaulting a friend was law enforcement.

Quote:

In that case the court ruled it wasn't porn. Geez Bill. That PROVES that naked pictures of underage females are not always porn.

As I said I am sure that a 17 years old teenage male will have pictures of females children in their baths instead of naked teenage females in sexual poses.

But keep trying to sell that nonsense all you wish to as all it does in downgrade what little credit abilities you might have.

Also I would suggest keeping far far far away of any pictures that contain any naked pictures of children as people like Firefly have the society going on a witch hunt for pedophiles and child porn pictures.

The only time Firefly have no problem with naked underage females pictures is when they happen to have been found on Trayvon phone.

so I would suggest keeping far far far away of any pictures that contain any naked pictures of children as people like Firefly have the society going on a witch hunt for pedophiles and child porn pictures.

So in other words you have NOT seen the pictures. You are just being an ass and assuming. Thanks for clearing that up.

What pictures Bill?

But on the other hand if they was not child porn pictures there would be no reason not to released them along with all the other evidence now would there be!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes it is simple to get confused and think that a hoodlum that attacked and try to beat to death a man for annoying him is a bad guy and the man who was force to used legal deadly force as a jury verdict found is the good guy

Dear heart you are not allow to see child porn pictures by their very nature and it you do see them off to prison you go.

Quote:

What pictures Bill?

The pictures y0u yourself had claimed that you can point to as examples of underage children that are naked but are not child porn.

You are funny and as dishonest as Firefly trying to sell the idea that a 17 years old male with naked pictures of underage females on his cell phone is going to have other then sexual poses pictures that are legally consider child porn.

Sorry good boy Trayvon have naked pictures of underage females and no one with a brain cell in working order is going to buy the idea that those pictures are anything less then sexual pictures and therefore child porn.