Teen Stars And Child Porn
Vanessa Hudgens' recent nude photo brings up some very interesting legal questions. At one point when the photo was first released there were unconfirmed and unsubstantiated whispers that Vanessa was only seventeen when she took the photos. Then, this weekend it was intimated she took and sent more nude photos when she was just sixteen.
The seventeen year old story went away very quickly and everyone who was asked denied any knowledge of any photos taken when she was just sixteen.
I have no knowledge of whether either of those situations is actually true, but it brings up a very interesting point of law which may lead other celebrities to hide the fact they were under the age of 18 if they took nude photos of themselves.
Generally when you think of child pornography you think of some dirty old man taking photos of children and then keeping them for himself or sending them to other like minded dirty old men.
Child pornography is not limited to this one set of facts though. Technically if an underage person takes naked photos of themselves and then distributes them, even to someone else underage, it is considered child pornography.
Therefore, if a celebrity who is 17 takes naked photos of themselves and then sends the photos to their friend or boyfriend or anyone for that matter, it is considered distribution of child pornography. In addition, the recipient of the photo could be charged with possession of child pornography.
In a recent Florida case two 16 year old teenagers who were boyfriend and girlfriend took naked photos of themselves, were discovered, arrested, and convicted. Their conviction was upheld by an appeals court in Florida.
The justice who wrote the majority opinion stated, "As previously stated, the reasonable expectation that the material will ultimately be disseminated is by itself a compelling state interest for preventing the production of this material. In addition, the statute was intended to protect minors like appellant and her co-defendant from their own lack of judgment...
Appellant was simply too young to make an intelligent decision about engaging in sexual conduct and memorializing it. Mere production of these videos or pictures may also result in psychological trauma to the teenagers involved.
Further, if these pictures are ultimately released, future damage may be done to these minors' careers or personal lives. These children are not mature enough to make rational decisions concerning all the possible negative implications of producing these videos."
The minority argued that the law was designed to protect children from others which is what I would have argued, but I must admit the majority presents a very reasoned argument and has the best interests of the child in mind with their ruling.
Again, I want to make it clear that to the best of my knowledge, Vanessa was 18 when she took those photos, and this commentary was just to show how gossip, sex tapes, and nude photos sometimes have real world consequences other than just embarrassment.
17 my Great Aunt Genevieve. The girl in those pics was more like late 15-early 16 at best.
ReplyDeleteOld enough for life without parole but not old enough to make a reasoned decision about sexual activity? Law is a strange business. (2,200 serving such sentences for crimes commited as a minor in the US in 2005, 12 in the rest of the world.)
ReplyDeleteExcellent food for thought, Ms. Wonderland.
ReplyDeleteAgreed, Ms.Wonderland. Anyone else notice the huge honkin' bruise on her arm?
ReplyDeleteIt could also be argued that the mouthpieces for both Disney and Hudgens are merely saying she was under 18 at the time, to frighten anyone who posts or views the pics into thinking they may be prosecuted on "child porn" charges; it's their way of scaring people into removing the pics from public view.
ReplyDeleteI don't know how her age could be proven one way or the other, though? The manufacturers of items in the pics w/ Hudgens (cell phone, purse, what-have-you) may be able to name a date-of-manufacture for those items, and if those things didn't yet exist when Hudgens was 15-16-17, the case for child porn would be dead in the water.
Who knows? It's all pretty bent, though. All these child performers have bizarre boundary issues. We're seeing it explode messily as they become adults....
Two Words:
ReplyDeleteTraci Lords.
so it's all fun and games
til they get caught
then the tables turn
So now are we supposed to be the Predators because we have computers?
Here is the question I always ask
whether it is celebrities or just the local kids in my community, WHERE THE F^CK ARE THE PARENTS?
Thanks for the legal stuff Ent. I would have never thought that naked pics like that would be considered child porn. And posters question if you are a real lawyer - ha! Of course you are, I have never doubted it :)
ReplyDeleteI don't think distilling or rewording other people's previously publicized opinions of this legal issue is going to dispel this author's "just out of school & has to mow the lawn" reputation. I really enjoyed the "court workers' strike affecting your schedule" post earlier but it would have been more believable last week.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIs it true that possession of child porn is a strict liability crime? Not only does it not matter that she took the pictures of herself and distributed them herself, but it also doesn't matter whether you knew (or had any reason to believe) the subject was a minor. Scary thought for anybody who clicked that link if she was indeed under 18. Actually, since the definition of child porn can be a lot less 'lewd' than adult porn, even the picture before the jump in her bra and panties could fall under some statutory definitions. It's got some wondering how constitutional these laws are.
ReplyDeleteEnt'L can you cite to the Florida case? I'd like to send it on to a friend who's writing an article on this.
Thanks.
A.H. v. State, 949 So. 2d 234 (Fla. Ct. App. 2007), also available at http://politechbot.com/docs/child.porn.laws.apply.to.minors.020807.html.
ReplyDeleteanna,
ReplyDeletehere is the link to the case
http://politechbot.com/docs/child.porn.laws.apply.to.minors.020807.html
Child porn is strict liability sometimes. The Model Penal Code doesn't have it as strict liability, and although child porn is horrible, I'm not in favor of strict liability crimes where there could be jail time. In addition, strict liability crimes generally have prison terms which are less than for a conviction where you have the necessary intent.
Thanks Ent! It's comforting to know you read the comments. I remember vaguely from crim law that statutory rape isn't actually strict liabilty; because age isn't an element of the crime but an attendant circumstance or something like that. It seems that if that is also the case for child pornography then it's also not technically strict liability. But to me the disturbing difference between statutory rape and possession of child porn is that the actus reus is so much less in a possession case--especially in the digital age. That means that not only do you not have to know that the person is a minor, but you don't have to do very much more than click a button and you have possession. Boom--then you bring your computer to BestBuy for repairs and you're in jail! Now I'm off to read this case.
ReplyDeleteOops, I must have inadvertently switched accounts. I was posting under my girlfriend's account before (she's Anna).
ReplyDelete"to the best of my knowledge..."
ReplyDeleteHey, Ent, are you trying to CYA in case they come after you for posting the pics? LOL!
Consider this, if you will: Has any one thought that maybe the reason she is denying these pics and Disney is turning the other cheek might be because this "oops" is really all part of a planned even-bad-press-is-good-press campaign to try and draw attention away from the fact that it's getting harder and harder to believe that Zach Efron is Mr. Heaving-Hetero? Wait...did I just say that??? I mean, of course, Zach is hetero! He's "dating" this teenage temptress, right? And let's face it, if the parental units piss and moan too much, Disney can pull off High School Muscial 3 without her, but not Zach. The way I see it the majority of the fan base is for good boy Zach. Every one else is just gravy for the pork chop.
Either way Disney wins. People that could care less about HSM2 will tune in now out of morbid curiosity to see her. Forecasting further, if even half of those people tune in to see her replacement for HSM3 that's coins in their pocket that they wouldn't have without a scandal. As for Zach's target audience, they aren't going any where, his little secret stays intact and Disney's cash cow lives on in infamy.
Forgive me if that sounded cynical. It's the first day of a diet and I'm a little on the edge today.
ReplyDeleteYeah, it's cynical, but that doesn't mean you're wrong. It's not like studios can force sham marriages anymore (not that we'd believe it anyway), so if they want to hide the fact that their star is gayer than gay, why not have the fake barely legal girlfriend leak photos that were allegedly for him?
ReplyDeleteUmm, allegedly gayer than gay, that is...
ReplyDeleteGot me scratching my head here. Although an underage person posing nude may be inappropriate, I don't see how it's pornography if no provocative behavior is taking place.
ReplyDeleteAnd if the law states that nudity itself is grounds for legal action, then why was nothing done when Thora Birch did a nude scene at age 16 in American Beauty?
I think it says alot for this country (world) that Britney Spears, and other pop idols can act as sexy as they want on stage and in video for the sake of sales. I personally, as a mother, was disgusted to have a 17 year old former mousketeer singing "I'm not that innocent" in a catholic schoolgirl outfit. She might not have gotten nude, but the message being sent to young women was that sexy was ok. Look how she has turned out. She is now a joke. Of course girls (especially) look up to teenage sex symbols (that GROWN adults drool over)- and feel that being sexy is the way to go. Look at the semi-nude pics of VHudgens, and you can tell she's acting a part she feels she has to play. She does not look like she's a playboy playmate being hot. She looks like a teenage girl who thinks this is what she should be doing. Girls nowadays see being sexy as the only way to get real attention. Is it their fault? No. I blame parents. I blame Mrs. Lohan. I blame Mrs. Spears. I don't care how much money it would make me, I would not allow my teenage daughter (I have all boys mind you :) ) to be paraded around as a sex object. It's only my opinion, but I want my kids to be kids as long as possible. They have their whole lives to be adults... let them be little.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296376,00.html
ReplyDeleteAnd (while I'm on my soapbox) I'd like to add Mrs. Fanning to the list. Allowing her daughter to participate as a child in a rape scene is beyond irresponsible and disgusting. I'm not saying only stage parents are responsible for this, we as parents need to really be responsible for wht our children see and do. VHudgens parents should be held responsible, not her. Look at her face. She isn't feeling so sexy she has to pose- she feels like it's what she's supposed to do. Disney, parents, young stars all need to look at what they are doing to our children.
Ultimately this is a matter of interpretation. It is indulged until somebody wants you damaged. then it´s lined out.
ReplyDeleteWhere is the thin line of demarcation here? As stated, you can buy weapons, shoot around, drink, drive, do drugs. All this long before you are 18. And on the other hand taking a naked picture of yourself? Now more then ever, with every cellphone having a cam? Excuse me. What is then to be prosecuted - should it begin with looking at a 15yo at the beach? Some are wearing see-through pieces in which you couldn't wrap a fly by using the total amount of material worn by those girls. Thats called what?
Or what you say about that 8-9yo boy from Switzerland, convicted in the USA for helping his much younger sister to pee? Would you agree with arguments like he is fully aware of "mature sexuality". But then touching his sister!!?
And not accounting at all that she still was a toddler and cleaning up is still necessary.
its such a russian roulette. like i said, covered or ignored until somebody wants use that with a specific purpose.
@ ent: would you have a live webcam of the beach near you delivering those see-througs, what would it be? Pornography or a nice beach view?
take care ;-)
I am such an idiot! Here I thought that FINALLY we had some great role models for kids. My kids LOVE HSM and I thought, what great clean fun (and it still is.) But I cannot believe Vanessa...what a little tramp!
ReplyDeleteAnyway...that said...we have to remember that these people are all paid to be one thing...."ACTORS." We cannot expect the person they really are to match the person they play in a part. Someone can play a great cold-blooded killer, yet be the perfect family man in real life. Alternatively, someone can play a peaches and cream innocent kid and really be a tramp in their real life!
Anyway...if she did take these pics for Drake, then we are talking some time ago, which would DEFINITELY make her UNDER 18!!!! If I were her parents, I would sue everyone who posts the pics.
Oh...and one more thing...I make a conscious choice to believe that my sweet little Zac is not gay, until I see naked pics of him with Princess Frostylocks, that is! LOL
ReplyDeleteOne more question i ask, for the obvious answer we already know: money.
ReplyDeleteWhy blame the parents on drugging the kids and stuff? They cannot jet around the world with the juniors.
But, why does the police not close in on some actors and actresses for doing drugs. Big, talented or not, it doesn´t matter. First it is always reported how much they consume. They will for sure buy from undercover officers. Or get the assistants in the first row, then they must help to get to them. Why is it always a substance found in the car - wich is rarely happening?
In this huge drug consuming Hollywood who was in for a reasonable time? Downey Jr. and just few others. Why is it indulged that assistants to the stars are buyers and who are by contract not allowed to tell in a book, yet not interrogated by the police? Why are the bodyguards not obliged by law (when they get their licences) to act also on the side of the law - this means reporting the drugs. As bodyguard you also would do some "saving" the star by keeping him away from drugs. Tell me thats not because of money, weapons and drugs, but because of morals and ethics stuff.
And looking at ents previous posted picture we are now all illegal underage porn consumers.
Im off, going to talk to my lawyers now. :-)