Sexting website free
Ambro during 3rd Circuit arguments: "Should we allow the state to force children, by threat of prosecution, to attend a session espousing the views of one particular government official on what it means to be a girl?
" "..DA's office asserts their opinion that no person could exchange such photographs [a girl in a bikini on a beach] for any other reason except sexual gratification." Well!
The child porn charges were merely a threat, to force the parents to subject their children to Skumanick's moral view of the world, where any and all child nudity is illegal and bras and bikinis are pornographic.
Child porn legislation makes no difference between sexual intercourse, and a photo of a four year old and a 17 year old in a non-nude suggestive pose, In alabama, older men in their 40s were charged with child porn even though photos of teenagers and preteens were not nude.
If a 40 year old male took the photo , would public outrage exist , the issue is whether the photos are illegal, For instance adultery is illegal in many states, charges are rare and non-existent in many instances, so are laws about cohabitation and sodomy, however suppose a prosecutor such as in lawrence v. The ACLU instead should sue to have the laws regarding so called child porn based on its vagueness thrown it as cruel and unusual punishment.
Now it falls to the Court of Appeals to decide whether the DA's office (Skumanick lost his bid for re-election in November) can proceed with prosecution.
This case has branded as the "'Sexting Case,"' and headlines ask questions like "'Sexting: Child porn or child's play?