Moderated What's wrong with porn?

[MontagK505]

<snip>


Clearly, those grounds are suspect, unless there are other, more pedophile-specific, laws that apply. Regardless, what would be the point of publishing photos of a nude Brook Shields at age 10, if not to sexually arouse? Whichever way you cut it, it's at least on the borderline of child porn, so back off buddy, I say!


Nude posing with intent to arouse (or the display of nude photos with intent to arouse) is "more or less" (see above) explicitly sexual. Surely you can see that.
<snip>

You're assuming a nude picture of a minor would only be displayed in a photography museum with the intent to arouse. Looking at the picture from the perspective of “classical” figure photography there is no intent to arouse and this would apply in principle without regard to the age of the model. Obviously, a pedophile would see this differently.

If the definition of kiddie porn is graphic genital touching of fingers, sex toys, or other persons genitalia involving a minor, fine. I don't have a problem with that definition. That's a clear guide line I can follow.

BTW By this definition the Brooke Shields photos are not kiddie porn.

However, if we define pornography in terms of intent it gets real fuzzy because then you could decide the painting “September Morn” is kiddie porn because the artist intended to arouse people by images of a nude 16yr old girl bathing in a brook.

 

[Southwind17]

RandFan cited two in this post, # 1071, the one right after the barrage of others you elected to respond to. One of which was specifically about 'kids in bath' photos. The other was about circumstances quite identical.

I feel confident that more are fairly easy to uncover. Why don't you try for yourself next.

Yes - I read both of those before responding previously.

First, only one of the cases cited by RandFan concerned photos of kids in the bath, which, if you paid more attention, was only an allegation, not a formal accusation that led to an indictment. Spurious allegations by over-zealous people abound on a daily basis.

Second, the other case can hardly be considered "quite identical". Photos of kids in the bath, by definition, involve naked kids(!) and are commonplace amongst parents. Moreover, I can quite understand the intial concern when I read:

The pictures showed the two little girls in underpants and naked. One showed the girl on the floor with her vaginal area pointing to the camera. `I wouldn't take a picture like this of anybody,' Kathryn Myers said.

Without a doubt the picture was suspect.

So, I repeat (this time with (ordinarily unnecessary!) emphasis - please point us to a case where the simple possession of regular photos of one's kids in the bath have led to an unfounded child porn accusation.

Why don't you try harder to pay more attention next time!

 

[Southwind17]

I understand the whole "intent" thing. But then you say this,
Why? How does one know that the intent of creating a nude under aged model is specifically for sexual reasons especially if that virtual model is in a non-sexual situation?
I know you are explaining the law but this is the problem with it: if someone creates a virtual under aged nude model, no matter the situation it's placed in, the creator runs the risk of being accused of creating child porn, no matter what the intent was.
Does this make any sense?

Does it make any sense? Honestly, JFrankA? Not really. What possible intent could one reasonably have in creating a nude under-age model for non-sexual reasons? And if it's in a non-sexual situation, well then go back to the definition of "pornography" that I wrote above. Really, JFrankA, I do get the impression that you're just being pig-headed on this and losing objectivity.

I know you are talking about the law here, but this is one of those times it makes no sense. Child porn is to stop real children from being injured or molested. I cannot see how a virtual nude under aged model can injure or molest a real child.

What do you mean by "child porn is to stop real children from being injured or molested."?!

But there are times when there is no intent to arouse on the part of the creator, but a lot of observers (or enough of them) would believe that it would be. Hell, in some places, just showing a woman's face is an intent to arouse.

OK - sticking with child porn - please cite some real-life examples of "more or less sexually explicit" images of children that have been created other than to arouse that could not reasonably be deemed to have been created for sexual arousal purposes.

There have been times where people have been accused of child porn when all they were doing was showing pics of their kids.

Accused by whom? Under what specific circumstances?
There have been times when people have been accused of murder when they were 10,000km away at the time. What's your point, JFrankA, that doesn't apply generally?

 

[Southwind17]

I got curious so I looked around a bit myself. The Google hits are all over the cases RandFan mentioned, but once past them I found this article, which included...
It's interesting to note that the article was written in 2000, long before the Wal-Mart case mentioned above. It's in Salon and includes a very good discussion of the issue in general. Well worth a read.
Here's another...
Woman charged with possession of child pornography for Taking photos of herself breastfeeding!
... and another ...
Prosecuting Innocence
(this one's in The Nation and also includes a thoughtful discussion.)
There's plenty more to be found. I should mention that I used the search term "kids in bath photos" and just pushed the timeline back to filter out the most recent WalMart contretemps. I didn't even bother to include any 'gotcha' keywords like "porn" or "kiddy"

And considering objectively the information and details that you've posted here what, exactly, do you think it proves?

 

[Southwind17]

You're assuming a nude picture of a minor would only be displayed in a photography museum with the intent to arouse. Looking at the picture from the perspective of “classical” figure photography there is no intent to arouse and this would apply in principle without regard to the age of the model. Obviously, a pedophile would see this differently.

I'm not assuming any such thing. The context (museum) makes the curator's(?) intent clear. If, however, the photograph was pornographic (see definition above), then that alters the whole context, and the curator's motives.

If the definition of kiddie porn is graphic genital touching of fingers, sex toys, or other persons genitalia involving a minor, fine. I don't have a problem with that definition. That's a clear guide line I can follow.

So it has to involve touching to cross the line for you! I'm tempted to say you're sick, but yet again I put your comment down to ill consideration. That said, you're clearly one of those peope with the propensity to teeter on the edge (given that I've spelled out where the line is drawn on numerous occasions now), and if you end up facing an accusation don't expect any sympathy from me, especially as you've prejudiced your possible excuses simply by participating in this thread!

BTW By this definition the Brooke Shields photos are not kiddie porn.

How convenient. Go ahead and create your images!

However, if we define pornography in terms of intent it gets real fuzzy because then you could decide the painting “September Morn” is kiddie porn because the artist intended to arouse people by images of a nude 16yr old girl bathing in a brook.

Strawman. Regardless, do you know for a fact that the artist intended to sexually arouse?

 

[quadraginta]

Yes - I read both of those before responding previously.

First, only one of the cases cited by RandFan concerned photos of kids in the bath, which, if you paid more attention, was only an allegation, not a formal accusation that led to an indictment. Spurious allegations by over-zealous people abound on a daily basis.

Second, the other case can hardly be considered "quite identical". Photos of kids in the bath, by definition, involve naked kids(!) and are commonplace amongst parents. Moreover, I can quite understand the intial concern when I read:Without a doubt the picture was suspect.

So, I repeat (this time with (ordinarily unnecessary!) emphasis - please point us to a case where the simple possession of regular photos of one's kids in the bath have led to an unfounded child porn accusation.

Why don't you try harder to pay more attention next time!

Why don't you. The case I cited here involves a woman who was dragged off in handcuffs. Is that not enough "accusation" for you?

And quit quibbling. That article title used the word "allegation". There's hundreds of articles on the same story. Wanna bet I can't find a few that say "accusation" instead. Nor did your first request for an example of an "accusation" include this new restriction of "led to an indictment". Quit moving the goalpost. Reckon I can't find some that did? Wanna bet? How about if I find some with jail time?

The Demarees had their children taken away by the state for a month. They were put on a sex offender registry. The wife was suspended from her job. Their friends, family, and neighbors were led by face-to-face interviews with police investigators to believe they were child abusers.

How damn much do you need to consider something to be an "accusation"?

 

[quadraginta]

And considering objectively the information and details that you've posted here what, exactly, do you think it proves?

I think it proves that I didn't have to try particularly hard to find valid examples, and that if I had crafted my search terms more explicitly I could likely have uncovered even more, and even more easily.

Why do you ask? I would have thought that you could figure that out for yourself.

 

[JFrankA]

Does it make any sense? Honestly, JFrankA? Not really. What possible intent could one reasonably have in creating a nude under-age model for non-sexual reasons? And if it's in a non-sexual situation, well then go back to the definition of "pornography" that I wrote above. Really, JFrankA, I do get the impression that you're just being pig-headed on this and losing objectivity.

Sorry, nudity doesn't equal intent to arouse.

If you've ever worked with Poser, the model starts off nude, then you add clothes later.

Your definition is "intent to arouse", now there is tons of media with that obvious intent, but how can you call a naked child photo an "intent to arouse" without knowing the picture, the scene and in what context?

In fact, how can this be considered child pornography if the subject isn't even a living, real human?

What do you mean by "child porn is to stop real children from being injured or molested."?!

The original intent of stopping child pornography was to stop children from being injured or molested. Now it's turned into something that even if two adults age play in an adult only environment or someone who has a naked, virtual under aged model on their computer, (again, not even a real human being), if one person can see it as an "intent to arouse" then those people can be punished as a "child pornographer" then we have gone beyond the original intent, in my humble opinion.

It's turned into a witch hunt.

(and no, not the law, just my humble opinion).

OK - sticking with child porn - please cite some real-life examples of "more or less sexually explicit" images of children that have been created other than to arouse that could not reasonably be deemed to have been created for sexual arousal purposes.

That's my point. I can point at something completely innocent and most people will say "no, there's no intent". But give one person who will look for intent, not because they are aroused by it, but because they are simply looking for it, then there's intent.

For example, (and I'm arguing about the ambiguity of "intent to arouse") how arousing is this picture? Do you think she did this on purpose with intent to arouse? If not, how do you know? And how do you know that since there wasn't enough people who complained about it enough to call it "intent to arouse" to make it so?

http://www.interestingillusions.com/img/cristie-kerr-trophy.jpg

Also, what about this picture?

http://knockedupcelebs.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/mileyanddad.jpg

This was a big contrivesy. I think the pic is harmless, and at first so did Miley and her dad. However, enough people saw something sexual in it that made Miley and her dad eventually apologize for this pic.

There was no intent to arouse on their part, yet enough people saw intent so that there was.

Now I ask you, how does one actually know intent?

Accused by whom? Under what specific circumstances?
There have been times when people have been accused of murder when they were 10,000km away at the time. What's your point, JFrankA, that doesn't apply generally?

Murder can be disproven with facts, testing and alibis. Not so easy with interpretations and opinions. This thread should show that point.

 

[Southwind17]

Why don't you. The case I cited here involves a woman who was dragged off in handcuffs. Is that not enough "accusation" for you?

Handcuffs = accusation!

And quit quibbling. That article title used the word "allegation". There's hundreds of articles on the same story. Wanna bet I can't find a few that say "accusation" instead. Nor did your first request for an example of an "accusation" include this new restriction of "led to an indictment". Quit moving the goalpost. Reckon I can't find some that did? Wanna bet? How about if I find some with jail time?

You do realise that the common meaning of "indictment" is "formal accusation", don't you?! But please - feel free - go ahead. Oh ... before you put yourself to any futile effort, though, I suggest you be prepared to show that:

1. it was a false conviction
2. it demonstrates a higher incidence of false conviction for child porn than most other crimes

See what I'm getting at here?

The Demarees had their children taken away by the state for a month. They were put on a sex offender registry. The wife was suspended from her job. Their friends, family, and neighbors were led by face-to-face interviews with police investigators to believe they were child abusers.
How damn much do you need to consider something to be an "accusation"?

Actually, I need a lot more, because, contrary to what you clearly think, legally accusations (if made) follow allegations after due investigation, and I chose the word "accusation" both deliberately and carefully. In a legal context accusation and indictment go hand in hand, as demonstrated above. If you choose not to pay attention to detail that's your look out.
Top tip: Don't consider becoming an attorney or judge!

 

[quadraginta]

I'm not even willing to concede this "intent to arouse" limit to SW's 'definition', because even my cursory review so far suggests that 'percieved as pornography, or 'able to arouse' have also been, and are increasingly becoming part of the test . This goes right back to the "I know it when I see it." issue.

The Salon article I cited mentions a Times Square billboard that Guiliani squelched when he was mayor because it might be perceived as suggestive. It was a Calvin Klein ad for boy's underwear.

This attitude is being used as part of the standard to judge by. The literature is rife with it.

Frankly I'm not inclined to do much more of SW's research for him. If he is truly interested in discussing the topic as a pursuit of understanding he needs to do some of his own pursuing. If he's more interested in trying to score semantic brownie points about a subject he only dimly understands from a preconceived position he can barely articulate then I don't see how offering more data or evidence is going to enlighten him. It hasn't seemed to do much good so far.

 

[Southwind17]

I think it proves that I didn't have to try particularly hard to find valid examples, and that if I had crafted my search terms more explicitly I could likely have uncovered even more, and even more easily.
Why do you ask? I would have thought that you could figure that out for yourself.

All I can figure out from what you've responded with here is that you really don't think very deeply about what's being asked of you. But then, you've already demonstrated that you don't pay attention to detail, so, whilst inexcusable, it's hardly surprising.

 

[Marcus]

When does it become pornographic? Is a picture of a nude child, just standing there pornographic?

No. To be pornographic the child must be in a sexual situation, or be posed suggestively. The interpetation and enforcement of these requirements varies tremendously between jurisdictions.

 

[Southwind17]

Sorry, nudity doesn't equal intent to arouse.

It depends on the context. Everything depends on context. That's why we have different "degrees" of murder, for example.

If you've ever worked with Poser, the model starts off nude, then you add clothes later.

Just like a toy doll, eh. So what? Does the model also start off as a minor? Does the model inevitably end up in a suspicious context? Get real JFRankA. I do like you, but you're dogmatism here is just starting to irritate me a little. BTW - how's Germany?

Your definition is "intent to arouse" ...

Not my definition, JFrankA. It's the legal definition, I believe.

... now there is tons of media with that obvious intent, but how can you call a naked child photo an "intent to arouse" without knowing the picture, the scene and in what context?

My point exactly, and the point that prosecutors should, and presumably do, generally, consider when deciding whether to indict. Clearly, if you're the holder or creator of such an image then the picture, scene and context are all readily apparent and you should know where you stand legally.

In fact, how can this be considered child pornography if the subject isn't even a living, real human?

Jeez JFrankA - what's wrong with you man - that woman of yours drained all the sense out of you?! Forgotten this pretty good article already that you posted?!

Here's a pretty good article about what I'm talking about.
http://www.briancuban.com/is-virtual-child-porn-protected-speech/

The original intent of stopping child pornography was to stop children from being injured or molested. Now it's turned into something that even if two adults age play in an adult only environment or someone who has a naked, virtual under aged model on their computer, (again, not even a real human being), if one person can see it as an "intent to arouse" then those people can be punished as a "child pornographer" then we have gone beyond the original intent, in my humble opinion.
It's turned into a witch hunt.

Sensationalism from you JFrankA? Surely not!

That's my point. I can point at something completely innocent and most people will say "no, there's no intent". But give one person who will look for intent, not because they are aroused by it, but because they are simply looking for it, then there's intent.
For example, (and I'm arguing about the ambiguity of "intent to arouse") how arousing is this picture? Do you think she did this on purpose with intent to arouse? If not, how do you know? And how do you know that since there wasn't enough people who complained about it enough to call it "intent to arouse" to make it so?
http://www.interestingillusions.com/img/cristie-kerr-trophy.jpg
Also, what about this picture?
http://knockedupcelebs.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/mileyanddad.jpg
This was a big contrivesy. I think the pic is harmless, and at first so did Miley and her dad. However, enough people saw something sexual in it that made Miley and her dad eventually apologize for this pic.
There was no intent to arouse on their part, yet enough people saw intent so that there was.
Now I ask you, how does one actually know intent?

I can't view the first picture, but I can the second, and based on that one it's obvious that you're (inadvertently, I'm supposing) being selective with the definition of porn. Allow me to reiterate:

pornography books, magazines, films, etc. dealing with or depicting sexual acts in a more or less explicit way, intended to arouse sexual excitement.

See the bit that you're now conveniently overlooking? (you don't really want me to go defining "sexual acts" for you now, do you?! )

Murder can be disproven with facts, testing and alibis. Not so easy with interpretations and opinions. This thread should show that point.

You serious JFrankA? So why the maxim "beyond reasonable doubt", then?!

BTW - what happened to the "thank you" for the free porn?!

 

[Southwind17]

The Salon article I cited mentions a Times Square billboard that Guiliani squelched when he was mayor because it might be perceived as suggestive. It was a Calvin Klein ad for boy's underwear.

Hang on. I thought we were debating pornography law, in particular child pornography law. Since when did the goalposts move it divert to obscenity law?!

Chambers 1998 Edition: research a careful search; investigation; systematic investigation towards increasing the sum of knowledge

Oops! I've highlighted those parts you really should pay attention to in future!

 

[Southwind17]

No. To be pornographic the child must be in a sexual situation, or be posed suggestively. The interpetation and enforcement of these requirements varies tremendously between jurisdictions.

Which explains why, prima facie, most of those aforementioned allegations against entirely innocent people were made. Because, on the face of it, the photos did not appear similarly entirely innocent. Can you blame people for reporting and investigating reasonably suspected child pornography? Of course not. Can you blame people for not applying a reasonable degree of objectivity when doing so? Of course you can. Can you blame the law makers when they don't? You know what I think.

 

[quadraginta]

Handcuffs = accusation!


You do realise that the common meaning of "indictment" is "formal accusation", don't you?! But please - feel free - go ahead. Oh ... before you put yourself to any futile effort, though, I suggest you be prepared to show that:

1. it was a false conviction
2. it demonstrates a higher incidence of false conviction for child porn than most other crimes

See what I'm getting at here?




Actually, I need a lot more, because, contrary to what you clearly think, legally accusations (if made) follow allegations after due investigation, and I chose the word "accusation" both deliberately and carefully. In a legal context accusation and indictment go hand in hand, as demonstrated above. If you choose not to pay attention to detail that's your look out.
Top tip: Don't consider becoming an attorney or judge!

Here's what you asked for the first time.

OK - so please point us to a case where the simple possession of regular photos of one's kids in the bath have led to an unfounded child porn accusation.

Here's what you asked for the second time.

So, I repeat (this time with (ordinarily unnecessary!) emphasis - please point us to a case where the simple possession of regular photos of one's kids in the bath have led to an unfounded child porn accusation.

And here's what you ask for this time.

"indictment"

and

1. it was a false conviction
2. it demonstrates a higher incidence of false conviction for child porn than most other crimes

"See what I'm getting at here?"

If you're not familiar with the concept of "moving the goalpost" then you should be, because it is a very irritating habit of yours.

Your repeated claims of precision of language become tedious, not least because you fail so miserably at it. At this juncture you are suggesting that your earlier use of the term "accusation" was in a precise legal sense. The context of those usages does not support that.

Now you seem to be implying that in legal idiom "accusation" and "indictment" are somehow synonymous, or at the very least inexorably intertwined. I believe you will have some difficulty defending even this new position you have retreated to. An "indictment" is indeed a special case of "accusation", but it is not, by any means, the only legal expression of "accusation". I'll let you try and develop some of your own research talents to understand that. You need the practice. Here's a hint to start you on your way. Google "indictment". (Be assured that I can provide cites.)

Nonetheless this remains evasive semantic quibbling on your part. You say, with a snide smilie...

Handcuffs = accusation!

Well ... yes.

Frequently. Nearly always, as a matter of fact, unless the arrest is made during the course of some sort of crime in the act, and in essence usually even then. Aside from that an arrest made in exercise of a warrant is a legal expression of an "accusation".

In addition, if you had bothered to review the article cited you would have also noticed (perhaps) this statement ...

What happened? In a now-familiar scenario, a technician at a Fuji Film processing lab turned in to authorities a roll of film containing pictures of Cynthia's 8-year-old daughter, Nora, at various stages of taking a bath. Add a zealous county prosecutor and a good dose of inflammatory news coverage--the Cleveland Plain-Dealer did a front-page story, a local TV news broadcast put Cynthia's mug shot on the screen, the Oberlin News-Tribune covered her arraignment under a banner headline "Bus driver, parents charged with abuse"

I highlighted "arraignment" for your convenience, in case you might feel constrained to explain how that isn't a legal equivalent of "accusation".

"If you choose not to pay attention to detail that's your look out."

Now, having satisfied your request for examples "where the simple possession of regular photos of one's kids in the bath have led to an unfounded child porn accusation." what exactly is your response?

 

[quadraginta]

Hang on. I thought we were debating pornography law, in particular child pornography law. Since when did the goalposts move it divert to obscenity law?!

Chambers 1998 Edition: research a careful search; investigation; systematic investigation towards increasing the sum of knowledge

Oops! I've highlighted those parts you really should pay attention to in future!

Troll.

Not even very talented at it.

Yawn.

Beyond your rather absurd declaration that there is some fundamental exclusion between "pornography "and "obscenity" without bothering to explain what such a distinction is or how it would even be germane to this discussion, you have demonstrated once again that you neglect to trouble yourself by actually reading the article in question before you comment on the content.

I'll do your homework for you one last time.

New York Mayor Rudy Guiliani and many others were deeply shocked by a proposed Times Square billboard showing small boys in expensive underpants bouncing on a suitably expensive couch. He thought it might encourage lascivious thoughts -- not in him but in pedophiles. Calvin Klein backed down and allowed the furor to give him the publicity the billboards were aimed at.

Now go ahead and expound on how "pedophiles" isn't related to "pornography law, in particular child pornography law".

 

[quadraginta]

I was curious about the resolution of the Cynthia Stewart case, since the Nation article I had unearthed was from before its ending, and the case was eight years ago.

It wasn't very good. The results are pertinent to our discussion, though.

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]OBERLIN, Ohio — A woman who made an agreement with prosecutors to avoid trial for taking nude photos of her 8-year-old daughter says she will have to tell the girl that she did not stand up for her own beliefs.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"The most difficult part of this for me is how do I explain to her that these pictures are going to be destroyed," Cynthia Stewart told about 100 people last night at First Church in Oberlin.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"The hardest part of signing the ... agreement is trying to figure out how to tell my daughter that I did not stand up for what I believed in."[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Stewart avoided trial and the possibility of 16 years in prison by signing an agreement April 4 to give up the two photos so they could be destroyed.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"There will no longer be any record of that moment in time...," Stewart said. "These pictures would never have been displayed even in our own house. The only people who would see them are my daughter, her father and me."[/FONT]
In the agreement, Stewart also had to acknowledge that the photos could be interpreted as sexually oriented even though they weren't meant to be.

So, at least in this case, intent was not a particularly important piece of the determination of pornography ...

or guilt.

 

[Marcus]

Here's what you asked for the first time.


Here's what you asked for the second time.




And here's what you ask for this time.

and

"See what I'm getting at here?"

If you're not familiar with the concept of "moving the goalpost" then you should be, because it is a very irritating habit of yours.

Your repeated claims of precision of language become tedious, not least because you fail so miserably at it. At this juncture you are suggesting that your earlier use of the term "accusation" was in a precise legal sense. The context of those usages does not support that.

Now you seem to be implying that in legal idiom "accusation" and "indictment" are somehow synonymous, or at the very least inexorably intertwined. I believe you will have some difficulty defending even this new position you have retreated to. An "indictment" is indeed a special case of "accusation", but it is not, by any means, the only legal expression of "accusation". I'll let you try and develop some of your own research talents to understand that. You need the practice. Here's a hint to start you on your way. Google "indictment". (Be assured that I can provide cites.)

Nonetheless this remains evasive semantic quibbling on your part. You say, with a snide smilie...

Well ... yes.

Frequently. Nearly always, as a matter of fact, unless the arrest is made during the course of some sort of crime in the act, and in essence usually even then. Aside from that an arrest made in exercise of a warrant is a legal expression of an "accusation".

In addition, if you had bothered to review the article cited you would have also noticed (perhaps) this statement ...

I highlighted "arraignment" for your convenience, in case you might feel constrained to explain how that isn't a legal equivalent of "accusation".

"If you choose not to pay attention to detail that's your look out."

Now, having satisfied your request for examples "where the simple possession of regular photos of one's kids in the bath have led to an unfounded child porn accusation." what exactly is your response?

I've also seen the news stories of these types of prosecutions. In my opinion they are based on a spurious interpetation of the law and should be overturned on appeal.

 

[Southwind17]

Here's what you asked for the first time.
Here's what you asked for the second time.
And here's what you ask for this time.
and
"See what I'm getting at here?"
If you're not familiar with the concept of "moving the goalpost" then you should be, because it is a very irritating habit of yours.
Your repeated claims of precision of language become tedious, not least because you fail so miserably at it. At this juncture you are suggesting that your earlier use of the term "accusation" was in a precise legal sense. The context of those usages does not support that.
Now you seem to be implying that in legal idiom "accusation" and "indictment" are somehow synonymous, or at the very least inexorably intertwined. I believe you will have some difficulty defending even this new position you have retreated to. An "indictment" is indeed a special case of "accusation", but it is not, by any means, the only legal expression of "accusation". I'll let you try and develop some of your own research talents to understand that. You need the practice. Here's a hint to start you on your way. Google "indictment". (Be assured that I can provide cites.)
Nonetheless this remains evasive semantic quibbling on your part. You say, with a snide smilie...
Well ... yes.
Frequently. Nearly always, as a matter of fact, unless the arrest is made during the course of some sort of crime in the act, and in essence usually even then. Aside from that an arrest made in exercise of a warrant is a legal expression of an "accusation".
In addition, if you had bothered to review the article cited you would have also noticed (perhaps) this statement ...
I highlighted "arraignment" for your convenience, in case you might feel constrained to explain how that isn't a legal equivalent of "accusation".
"If you choose not to pay attention to detail that's your look out."
Now, having satisfied your request for examples "where the simple possession of regular photos of one's kids in the bath have led to an unfounded child porn accusation." what exactly is your response?

Troll.
Not even very talented at it.
Yawn.
Beyond your rather absurd declaration that there is some fundamental exclusion between "pornography "and "obscenity" without bothering to explain what such a distinction is or how it would even be germane to this discussion, you have demonstrated once again that you neglect to trouble yourself by actually reading the article in question before you comment on the content.
I'll do your homework for you one last time.
Now go ahead and expound on how "pedophiles" isn't related to "pornography law, in particular child pornography law".

I was curious about the resolution of the Cynthia Stewart case, since the Nation article I had unearthed was from before its ending, and the case was eight years ago.
It wasn't very good. The results are pertinent to our discussion, though.
So, at least in this case, intent was not a particularly important piece of the determination of pornography ...
or guilt.

You'll excuse me, I'm sure, if I respond just to those aspects of your posts that you are clearly interested in discussing in an adult manner in the interests of furthering the debate, and skip the remainder that, sadly, appears to be a mere manifestation of some extraneous need of yours to vent some obvious personal and somewhat juvenile frustration. Have you just broken up, by any chance?

OK ... let's see now ... oh ... OK ... moving swiftly on ...

Please address the argument rather than making off-topic personal attacks.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles