Dahlia Lithwick says, "the great majority of these kids ... have no intention of producing or purveying kiddie porn", but what is kiddie porn if not a naked picture of a preteen or teenage girl (or boy). I'm not sure what she means by this and have come to the conclusion that she could mean one of two things: that most of the self-pics taken and sent are by preteens and teenagers and so are not the worst kind of child pornography, or that since the pictures are being taken by the preteens and teenagers themselves, they don't constitute child pornography. From context, I assume she means the latter. If this is what she meant, then she could not possibly understand how child pornography is made. (I have decided not to fully flesh out this point and just write something pithy). The process of getting a child to engage in sexual acts or sexually suggestive acts while on camera requires a series of degradations not unlike a current American childhood. We apparently are only consumers and not actually citizens and young girls (mostly) are just one more thing to be consumed. If, outside of context, Lithwick meant the former, then that requres only one two word answer: just wait.

but what is kiddie porn if not a naked picture of a preteen or teenage girl (or boy).

If memory serves, not according to Scalia, and the other Supremes. Mere underage nudity doesn't constitute child pornography.

These fall into any reasonable definition of kiddie porn except for one -- no person other than the minor was involved in producing them. These are images designed for sexual gratification of others involving minors. That's kiddie porn. But they weren't taken by or for adults; they were taken by the minors for the minors' personal purposes. That's pretty clearly outside the laws' purpose, which was to prevent exploitation of children.

The schools were probably happy to have a pretext to ban cell phones on the grounds anyways, so that seems like a good and robust solution. In general, distribution is the evil we're concerned with here, so let's prosecute distribution robustly and rejigger the laws to call taking a picture of oneself and sending it to another person a misdemeanor at the very most.

Thanks. Does there need to be sexual suggestiveness or actual sexual contact to make it child pornography?

Kimmitt:

These fall into any reasonable definition of kiddie porn except for one -- no person other than the minor was involved in producing them.

Was the parent who purchased the phone with a camera on it involved in producing them? What if someone (drunken stepdad, toothless uncle, or some other ne'er-do-well) sets up a situation where naked self-pics are almost inevitable while breaking no other laws (alcohol to minors, or something else)?

The toothless uncle or the pervert step-mother could be prosecuted for possession of child porn in the scenarios you mention. There's still nothing gained by penalizing the kids.

A picture of a nude minor would be protected free speech unless it was of a lascivious nature:

(8) “child pornography” means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where—

(A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; (B) such visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or (C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct. <link>

Thanks. That's helpful. I didn't realize that the definition of child pornography was that restrictive. Years ago I reacall questions being raised about David Hamilton's pictures of nude teenage girls. Here's onehttp://farm1.static.flickr.­com/48/146110653_17fdf2ef63.jp­g?v=0

Another try at a link to some David Hamilton photos

<link>

<link>

<link>

<link>

todji:

The toothless uncle or the pervert step-mother could be prosecuted for possession of child porn in the scenarios you mention. There's still nothing gained by penalizing the kids.

But could the adult who buys the kid a camera and maybe encourages particular behavior be charged with production of child porn if the kid takes the pictures and the adult is there and encourages it? How about if the adult isn't there exactly when the pictures are taken, but is encouraging of the behavior?

What type of behavior are you talking about? What was done with the pictures--e.g., were they pasted into the family photo album or sold on the Internet?

I'd assume that said person would eventually want to look at the photos, no? If not, what possible motivation would they hafe? If so, then by the time the police get involved, they'd probably have possession and could be prosectured.

To by a camera/phone for a kid which is then used to take nude images wouldn't be prosecutable unless there was intent behind the purchase. The adult could be prosecuted by laws that punish contributing to the deliquency of a minor.

But I'm not a lawyer. Just a reasonable guess.

Distributing links to child porn on the fray now, huh?

They don't look like porn to me. Maybe porn is in the eye of the beholder?

I was joking.