PashaPhoto wrote:

are you saying that a plight of black people during the civil rights movement is the same as the plight of photographers who cannot shoot a model naked until she's 18?

really?

I'm saying there was nothing inherently criminal about the civil rights movement despite the laws of the day making it so, just as there is nothing inherently criminal about taking nude photos of anybody.  Or do you think your neighbors should be sitting in a jail cell because they have pictures of their kids taking a bath?

Myshkin wrote:

I'm saying there was nothing inherently criminal about the civil rights movement despite the laws of the day making it so, just as there is nothing inherently criminal about taking nude photos of anybody.  Or do you think your neighbors should be sitting in a jail cell because they have pictures of their kids taking a bath?

do you really think that this discussion is about pics a parent takes of their kid taking a bath?

PashaPhoto wrote:

do you really think that this discussion is about pics a parent takes of their kid taking a bath?

if you think drawing a moral line about shooting models nude when they turn the magical age of 18 isn't about the criminalization of normal behavior then I can see why you don't make the connection.

Phen Mas wrote:
Being safe... I wouldn't do it, though technically it is legal. If there is one thing I've learned about American law is when things are left up to "interpretation" with words like explicit,pornographic, etc you are taking a huge risk, as anyone can twist this situation to fit their own goals. In other words I would not take a chance.

-Phen

thankfully millions of people who don't have that attitude have helped to create a better world for you by standing up for what is right. Do you ever wonder how much sooner we could have overcome social injustices if more of the silenced voices of reason had spoken?

Tracy  Archinuk wrote:

.Have Pentax Will Travel wrote:
No. I'm saying if you're dedicated to your art, it comes before anything else.

While this is a very confused thread from all the replies I have to disagree with this. In college there were "artists" who spent their last dollars on paint and brushes instead of food. My mom did not raise a fool. To hell with starving. This pretentious posturing dismisses why you became an artist in the first place and what it means. Selfless martyrdom? Please.

Well, clinging to commercially produced paint as if it were the very matter of art is a little ridiculous. That's really a dedication to craft, which I don't understand myself. Art is bigger than that. Art isn't about paint or film or clay or a harmonica. It is about telling the truth.

Cherrystone wrote:

Even one's sanity?

Unfortunately, that has ample historical precedent.

Tim Hammond wrote:
Problem is, he's not.  He's just standing back here behind the commander and saying anyone who's not enthusiastic about running up the hill is not a real patriot.

I am doing no such damned thing.

Gil Rivera wrote:
I'm sorry Tim,  If you're an artist. You should be able to create the same photo with an abult.

Tell that to the fashion designers hiring 15 and 16 year olds to walk the runway.

Have Pentax Will Travel wrote:
I'm wondering who made this collage. It certainly paints a different picture of adolescent nudity in photos and the law than you hear around here most of the time.

http://www.charlesbeckwith.com/gagimage … enudes.jpg*

*I copied it to my own server because the link I was sent went to a page on an adult site, and we're not allowed to link to porn sites from MM.

studio36uk wrote:
For those interested in the case law. The last case listed:

United States v. Various Articles of Merchandise Schedule No. 287 (2000)

Was a customs case heard on appeal in the 3rd US Ct. Court of Appeals that may be searchable by the name "Alessandra Smiles" or possibly "Alessandra's Smile" I have a copy of it around somewhere. Alternatively you might find a list of 3rd Ct. cases for that year [e.g. on FindLaw] and it should be coupled with the name.

The subject of the case was the importation of a quantity of out-of-print European nudist magazines containing predominantly images of children in a nudist context.

The court found in favor of the importer.

Studio36

Thanks again for being a light in a time of darkness!

All the fearmongering just on this thread . . . government has a powerful ally in its push to wittle away Civil Rights: ignoramuses who spread rumour, hearsay and out-and-out lies! 

Thanks for being the polar opposite of these clowns, Studio36!

PashaPhoto wrote:
let's not get carried away and start comparing such social issues as racism and other fights for equality with ability of photographers to shoot underaged models nude...

they are simply not one and the same, or even in the same ballpark...

Well, it's not about shooting underage nudes. To me, it is about defending freedom of speech and freedom of the press, and the idea of resisting prior restraint on those freedoms with every last ounce of strength.

Myshkin wrote:

thankfully millions of people who don't have that attitude have helped to create a better world for you by standing up for what is right. Do you ever wonder how much sooner we could have overcome social injustices if more of the silenced voices of reason had spoken?

Believe me there is a time to be bold and stand up for what you believe in despite that which is around you. Also it is necessary to do things which noone else is doing , but honestly when it comes to this subject matter, personally I don't feel motivated or inclined to push the issue. That is just me and my opinion on this issue, however, don't assume that attitude carries over to every issue.

- Phen

Have Pentax Will Travel wrote:
Well, it's not about shooting underage nudes. To me, it is about defending freedom of speech and freedom of the press, and the idea of resisting prior restraint on those freedoms with every last ounce of strength.

Amen, brother!

Phen Mas wrote:

Believe me there is a time to be bold and stand up for what you believe in despite that which is around you. Also it is necessary to do things which noone else is doing , but honestly when it comes to this subject matter, personally I don't feel motivated or inclined to push the issue. That is just me and my opinion on this issue, however, don't assume that attitude carries over to every issue.

- Phen

So - when do you think is the proper time to defend one's Rights???  When they've already been taken away???

J C ModeFotografie wrote:

Have Pentax Will Travel wrote:
Well, it's not about shooting underage nudes. To me, it is about defending freedom of speech and freedom of the press, and the idea of resisting prior restraint on those freedoms with every last ounce of strength.

Amen, brother!


So - when do you think is the proper time to defend one's Rights???  When they've already been taken away???

I don't think you understood what I meant. I am not saying a refuse to protect ones rights, but honestly this situation never really comes up for me. I think the law is put in place to protect the rights of a more innocent target, though it can in fact strip their rights if twisted. Again... open to interpretation .I am simply stating I don't push the issue, because I am never in a situation when I have to or even remotely involved.

-Phen

Phen Mas wrote:
I don't think you understood what I meant. I am not saying a refuse to protect ones rights, but honestly this situation never really comes up for me. I think the law is put in place to protect the rights of a more innocent target, though it can in fact strip their rights if twisted. Again... open to interpretation .I am simply stating I don't push the issue, because I am never in a situation when I have to or even remotely involved.

If someone did push it, and the images or clips in question had obvious artistic merit, would you support them?

Have Pentax Will Travel wrote:
If someone did push it, and the images or clips in question had obvious artistic merit, would you support them?

It really depends on the situation. I am not going to give an open yes or no, because too many people think their work has "obvious artistic merit," and that's not the case. Not only that, but the means in which the images will be produced will be less than ethical. I think this in the purest sense, you have the right to express yourself through art in whatever means necessary , as long as it doesn't compromise the rights of those involved. I think if it was a professionally carried out shoot and I knew the person and their intentions, as well as knowing that noones rights were compromised in the making and marketing of the image, then I would support them in their right to do so. I will say this though, there is a reason the law is in place to protect those who don't always have a voice, and are easily taken advantage of,by those who should be protecting them. So this is why I am cautious in this area. So it's definitely a case by case basis.

For those who say it's their artistic right to create/say whatever it is they like, then I ask you this... Have you seen the movie "Perfume?" If so, when the main character does what he does to achieve his perfume , which has "obvious artistic merit," is it ok because he is expressing himself artistically via his "right" to create?

- Phen

Have Pentax Will Travel wrote:
Art isn't about paint or film or clay or a harmonica. It is about telling the truth.

Is it? Sounds like photojournalism.

It seems so much photographic art is about creating something other than the truth. Truths are righteous, and I believe in truth and order as a person and a citizen--but they're also boring, mundane. A girl who hasn't eaten in three days standing on a piece of cloth in a warehouse hoping her eye isn't red from the idiot makeup artist who got mascara in it trying to do a face and talk on her phone is what's going on... Why is that better than the confident fashionista who rules her world of beauty and excitement? Or for that matter, the drooling zombie? Truth requires no creativity.

Have Pentax Will Travel wrote:

Then you just don't understand.

Is your art itself not worth making sacrifices for? If the perfect image means arranging something that could make it your last--is it worth doing "real" or is it worth faking? Hustler could have put a real woman in an oversized meat grinder, but then they would have been shut down, and their purpose of pushing the boundaries of the first amendment to make the world safe for offensiveness would have ended. Photoshopping had the same visual affect and they still stayed in print.

Now obviously, there's a legal difference between a woman in a meat grinder and underage nudes--but if you really believed that a shot would end you completely, wouldn't the entirety of your art overrule a single frame?

PashaPhoto wrote:

if you feel that strongly about it, then by all means - fight the good fight...

i personally tend to be a bit more careful when discussing subjects that tend to have the type of controversy that could possibly cost me my livelyhood...

Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither. Good ole' Ben Franklin said that. He was referring to men laying don their lives for the rights we have, so sacrificing liberty for safety to protect money drastically pales in comparison.

Jenna Black wrote:
Truth requires no creativity.

Repeating accepted truths does not. Affecting minds, communicating what hasn't been said clearly, the deepest purpose of art, requires creative thought.

Have Pentax Will Travel wrote:

I don't have any plans to shoot nudes at all. If I had an assignment to do so from a major publication or advertiser, I don't think I would give it a second thought because of that. I'd ask if the assignment was something I'm interested in, and if the answer was "yes," then I would accept.

Considering that my target clients are companies that have already pushed that edge in the past, or follow the pedigree of those that have, I don't think it's that much of a risk.

If I had tear sheets from, for instance, Italian Vogue, and they included a 17 year old's bare bottom, again, I would not give it a second thought to put that in my portfolio.

If you are a (true) "patriot" as you claim to be, you should be the first one to step up to the plate and photograph a nude 16 year old girl and be a challenge case. Since you claim you have no plans to do so, then you are at best an armchair inciter with no legs to stand on except those on your armchair.

SunArcher - Shreveport wrote:

Riiiiiiiight..."no doubt illegal" is referring to perception? Sorry, I'm calling BS.


That may be the whole point of the OP: lack of fear. What does it matter? If it's not illegal, so what?

I'm completely lost by your post. First you say "no doubt illegal," then you change your tune talking about perceived illegalities. Then based on that perception, you question why someone is doing something legal on their own Web site. Sorry, my head hurts.

HeHe this thread is hilarious

Too Hot For Snakes wrote:

If you are a (true) "patriot" as you claim to be, you should be the first one to step up to the plate and photograph a nude 16 year old girl and be a challenge case. Since you claim you have no plans to do so, then you are at best an armchair inciter with no legs to stand on except those on your armchair.

Just because the man expressed his beliefs doesnt make him obligated to go out and do anything!

SonoraImages wrote:
Unfortunately the collage only points out the age of the models....nothing specific on each shot....like where published, and if there were specific court cases involving those photos.  There are cases listed in the bottom corner....but who knows what they involve.....I'm not going to try to seach for them and read any citiations, etc.....probably wouldn't understand them completely since I am not a lawyer.

To be worthwhile, this thread would need specific cases listed with a synopsis.....IMHO.

This thread will probably go to hell real quick, once someone comments on the "morals" aspect.....

*****

THERE IS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE EVERYONE IS MISSING HERE.... YES AMERICA HAS SOME VERY CONSERVATIVE LAWS REGARDING MINORS... BUT FOR EVERY LAW WE HAVE THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF OLDER MEN THAT WANT TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF YOUNG WOMEN... MORE SO THEN OVERSEAS... IT IS THE WAY IT IS...AND WILL ALWAYS BE...!

Doug Swinskey wrote:
funny thing is, that the police are almost as ignorant to the law as the average citizen....

This is true.  It's why I always carry with me on every shoot a copy of the 1992 Court of Appeals case that made it legal in NY state for women to be topless in public anywhere men could be.  And for those police who don't have an easy time understanding court opinions, I also carry a copy of a NY Post article about a woman who won a $29,000 settlement from the NYPD after they arrested her for being topless in public.

Even after all that, though, the models and I are still taking a risk that we will nevertheless be arrested and processed, incur significant expenses, and have damage done to our reputations no matter the eventual outcome of the case.  Personally, I find my work on the Topless New York series to be worth that risk.  However, the additional risk to me and my livelihood were I to be incorrectly arrested for violating child porn laws is more than enough to convince me that I don't intend ever to shoot an under-18 model for the series.

I admire those who say they don't care about perception or consequences and would use under-18 models for nude shoots, but I think the number of those who actually will do so is much smaller.

Jenna Black wrote:
It is legal, in the United States, to photograph any person of any age nude in non-sexual context. Those under the age of 18 must have a parent present and the parent must sign the release. That's it.

And here we go again.

Jenna Black wrote:
It is legal, in the United States, to photograph any person of any age nude in non-sexual context. Those under the age of 18 must have a parent present and the parent must sign the release. That's it.

c_d_s wrote:
And here we go again.

Yeah... that doesn't sound right either. What law is that?

Too Hot For Snakes wrote:
If you are a (true) "patriot" as you claim to be, you should be the first one to step up to the plate and photograph a nude 16 year old girl and be a challenge case. Since you claim you have no plans to do so, then you are at best an armchair inciter with no legs to stand on except those on your armchair.

I made no such claim.

PashaPhoto wrote:
you're a true patriot, Ched...

.Have Pentax Will Travel wrote:
Naw, just a militant humanist.

You're talking about challenging an non-existent law. My protest is right here, posting the image link to MM, challenging this community to wake up and reject this nonsense that gets posted every couple days, when people repeat day after day that it's illegal to photograph a minor nude. It is not.

Does this mean I'm going to call an agency and ask them to send me three 16 year olds so I can shoot nudes just to do it and get away with it? Absolutely not.

Jenna Black wrote:
It is legal, in the United States, to photograph any person of any age nude in non-sexual context. Those under the age of 18 must have a parent present and the parent must sign the release. That's it.

c_d_s wrote:
And here we go again.

Have Pentax Will Travel wrote:
Yeah... that doesn't sound right either. What law is that?

In Texas the law says quite the opposite:

§ 43.25.  SEXUAL PERFORMANCE BY A CHILD.  (a)  In this
section:           
        (1)  "Sexual performance" means any performance or part
thereof that includes sexual conduct by a child younger than 18
years of age.
        (2)  "Sexual conduct" means sexual contact, actual or
simulated sexual intercourse, deviate sexual intercourse, sexual
bestiality, masturbation, sado-masochistic abuse, or lewd
exhibition of the genitals, the anus, or any portion of the female
breast below the top of the areola.
        (3)  "Performance" means any play, motion picture,
photograph, dance, or other visual representation that can be
exhibited before an audience of one or more persons.
        (4)  "Produce" with respect to a sexual performance
includes any conduct that directly contributes to the creation or
manufacture of the sexual performance.
        (5)  "Promote" means to procure, manufacture, issue,
sell, give, provide, lend, mail, deliver, transfer, transmit,
publish, distribute, circulate, disseminate, present, exhibit, or
advertise or to offer or agree to do any of the above.
        (6)  "Simulated" means the explicit depiction of sexual
conduct that creates the appearance of actual sexual conduct and
during which a person engaging in the conduct exhibits any
uncovered portion of the breasts, genitals, or buttocks.
        (7)  "Deviate sexual intercourse" and "sexual contact"
have the meanings assigned by Section 43.01.
    (b)  A person commits an offense if, knowing the character
and content thereof, he employs, authorizes, or induces a child
younger than 18 years of age to engage in sexual conduct or a sexual
performance.  A parent or legal guardian or custodian of a child
younger than 18 years of age commits an offense if he consents to
the participation by the child in a sexual performance.

c_d_s wrote:

Jenna Black wrote:
It is legal, in the United States, to photograph any person of any age nude in non-sexual context. Those under the age of 18 must have a parent present and the parent must sign the release. That's it.

c_d_s wrote:
And here we go again.

Have Pentax Will Travel wrote:
Yeah... that doesn't sound right either. What law is that?

In Texas the law says quite the opposite:

Sigh.

Ray Holyer wrote:
Sigh.

You need to be more explicit when posting in the industry forum sections. Junk posts are not allowed.

Jenna Black wrote:
It is legal, in the United States, to photograph any person of any age nude in non-sexual context. Those under the age of 18 must have a parent present and the parent must sign the release. That's it.

OK, it's legal. But .....

Joe Stopbath is a 44 year old serious photographer who has spent more than 20 years mastering his craft. He is not a pro, though he's more skilled than many pros and he is well established in his career, a career which has nothing to do with photography.

Susy Q, the mom of Vixin contacts him about doing anude session with her 16 year old nubile nymphette daughter. She tell him her entire family are long time nudist, including Vixen, the nubile nymphette daughter. Under those circumstances he agrees to do the shoot. Mom is present in the room during the shoot and all turns out well, they end up with some beautiful,discrete nude images. Mom and dad sign a release, as does Vixen and all go their own way.

Vixen gives a copy of the images to her boyfriend, who promptly shows them to his friends, one of whom shows them to his mother, Olga, a born again Christian. Bertha is not impressed! In fact she's so unimpressed that she shows them to her neighbor, who happens to be the District Attorney, lso a born again, fundamentalist Christian, who by the way is coming up for election. The DA is also highly unimpressed with the artistic merit of the images, but is suddenly impressed with the chance of getting pre election headlines.

One Friday evening Joe Stopbath is having dinner with his family and the doorbell rings. There are six policemen there with search and arrest warrant. He's taken away from his family in handcuffs and his house is searched from top to bottom. His leather bound portfolio is taken as evidence because two images of Vixin are in it, along with other nude images of models he has hired from MM, most of whom are 18 to 22 and "look young". 

Joe spends the weekend in a cell with Bubba as he can't get bail until he goes before a judge and no judges are available until Monday. Saturday morning his wife opens the newspaper and sees Joe's photo on the front page, with headlines announcing "Local photographer arrested for child pornography".  By Monday AM, she had received 75 phone calls from both strangers and friends saying she is "going to hell" for being married to a pedophile and child pornographer.  On Monday, his wife posts the equity in their home for bail and Joe Stopbath comes home. He learns hi skids are crying because the parents of their friends will no longer allow their kids to play with his kids.

On Tuesday news headlines revel the child porn investigation is continuing, that the crime lab has examined his computer and found evidence of "interstate links" which are "of interest" to the prosecutors. It seems that while surfing the internet, he found himself on sites showing child porn, bondage and other fetish photography. "Investigation continues"!

On Tuesday he goes to work, just like everyday for the past 20 years, but learns his boss wants to see him. His boss, general manager of a conservative firm, is sad' He consoles Joe, saying he knows Joe is not involved in child porn, but the firm is very conservative and the manager has responsibility to protect the owners. "We just can not let your bad publicity damage our business." Joe get a full month severance pay when he is fired.  Joe's friends are interviewed by the police. The parents of his daughters friends are interviewed, as are the kids themselves. "What happened in all of these sleep overs you did at his house?"

A few months pass and Joe has spent his life savings and taken a second mortgage on his house to pay a criminal defense lawyer to represent him. His wife has taken a job at KFC to bring in some cash, since Joe can not find a job while awaiting trial. His oldest daughter drops out of the local community college, since they can no longer pay her tuition and takes a job at a local strip club. His youngest son is getting in fights at school and has become clinically depressed.

Finally his trial comes! It lasts four days but his lawyer does a good job and the jury acquits him. He goes home a free man. But the next day his car is repossessed since they could not make payments and he has received letters from his mortgage banker threatening to take his house for non payment.  He's a free man, but his former friends are talking about how he would not have been arrested and tried if nothing had been going on. His former employer has filled his job and has no openings. But he is innocent of being  a child pornographer!

Yes, non sexual photography of under age kids is probably legal, but so what. Wonder if Joe believes photographing that 16 year old Vixin was worth it?

Victoria Julison wrote:
I saw some pics in there that were pics taken from films. Are you sure they werent pics of young looking women portraying younger ones. IE the american beauty pic wasnt just a baby faced 19 yr old girl portraying a 16 yr old? This doesnt make a lot of sense to me, as I dont know of any film company that would hire an underage girl to do a topless shot...plus her bewbs are too big to be 16, lol. :-p

ive seen well endowed tween girls in my days ( when i was in Junior high school and highschool as well)

Doug Lester wrote:

OK, it's legal. But .....

Joe Stopbath is a 44 year old serious photographer who has spent more than 20 years mastering his craft. He is not a pro, though he's more skilled than many pros and he is well established in his career, a career which has nothing to do with photography.

Susy Q, the mom of Vixin contacts him about doing anude session with her 16 year old nubile nymphette daughter. She tell him her entire family are long time nudist, including Vixen, the nubile nymphette daughter. Under those circumstances he agrees to do the shoot. Mom is present in the room during the shoot and all turns out well, they end up with some beautiful,discrete nude images. Mom and dad sign a release, as does Vixen and all go their own way.

Vixen gives a copy of the images to her boyfriend, who promptly shows them to his friends, one of whom shows them to his mother, Olga, a born again Christian. Bertha is not impressed! In fact she's so unimpressed that she shows them to her neighbor, who happens to be the District Attorney, lso a born again, fundamentalist Christian, who by the way is coming up for election. The DA is also highly unimpressed with the artistic merit of the images, but is suddenly impressed with the chance of getting pre election headlines.

One Friday evening Joe Stopbath is having dinner with his family and the doorbell rings. There are six policemen there with search and arrest warrant. He's taken away from his family in handcuffs and his house is searched from top to bottom. His leather bound portfolio is taken as evidence because two images of Vixin are in it, along with other nude images of models he has hired from MM, most of whom are 18 to 22 and "look young". 

Joe spends the weekend in a cell with Bubba as he can't get bail until he goes before a judge and no judges are available until Monday. Saturday morning his wife opens the newspaper and sees Joe's photo on the front page, with headlines announcing "Local photographer arrested for child pornography".  By Monday AM, she had received 75 phone calls from both strangers and friends saying she is "going to hell" for being married to a pedophile and child pornographer.  On Monday, his wife posts the equity in their home for bail and Joe Stopbath comes home. He learns hi skids are crying because the parents of their friends will no longer allow their kids to play with his kids.

On Tuesday news headlines revel the child porn investigation is continuing, that the crime lab has examined his computer and found evidence of "interstate links" which are "of interest" to the prosecutors. It seems that while surfing the internet, he found himself on sites showing child porn, bondage and other fetish photography. "Investigation continues"!

On Tuesday he goes to work, just like everyday for the past 20 years, but learns his boss wants to see him. His boss, general manager of a conservative firm, is sad' He consoles Joe, saying he knows Joe is not involved in child porn, but the firm is very conservative and the manager has responsibility to protect the owners. "We just can not let your bad publicity damage our business." Joe get a full month severance pay when he is fired.  Joe's friends are interviewed by the police. The parents of his daughters friends are interviewed, as are the kids themselves. "What happened in all of these sleep overs you did at his house?"

A few months pass and Joe has spent his life savings and taken a second mortgage on his house to pay a criminal defense lawyer to represent him. His wife has taken a job at KFC to bring in some cash, since Joe can not find a job while awaiting trial. His oldest daughter drops out of the local community college, since they can no longer pay her tuition and takes a job at a local strip club. His youngest son is getting in fights at school and has become clinically depressed.

Finally his trial comes! It lasts four days but his lawyer does a good job and the jury acquits him. He goes home a free man. But the next day his car is repossessed since they could not make payments and he has received letters from his mortgage banker threatening to take his house for non payment.  He's a free man, but his former friends are talking about how he would not have been arrested and tried if nothing had been going on. His former employer has filled his job and has no openings. But he is innocent of being  a child pornographer!

Yes, non sexual photography of under age kids is probably legal, but so what. Wonder if Joe believes photographing that 16 year old Vixin was worth it?

damn......

Doug Lester wrote:
...Joe spends the weekend in a cell with Bubba...

Every single time I heard a story about somebody going to jail, there's this Bubba guy in it.
Does everybody go to the same cell? or there are a Bubba for each single prison in the States?

Doug Lester wrote:

OK, it's legal. But .....

Joe Stopbath is a 44 year old serious photographer who has spent more than 20 years mastering his craft. He is not a pro, though he's more skilled than many pros and he is well established in his career, a career which has nothing to do with photography.

Susy Q, the mom of Vixin contacts him about doing anude session with her 16 year old nubile nymphette daughter. She tell him her entire family are long time nudist, including Vixen, the nubile nymphette daughter. Under those circumstances he agrees to do the shoot. Mom is present in the room during the shoot and all turns out well, they end up with some beautiful,discrete nude images. Mom and dad sign a release, as does Vixen and all go their own way.

Vixen gives a copy of the images to her boyfriend, who promptly shows them to his friends, one of whom shows them to his mother, Olga, a born again Christian. Bertha is not impressed! In fact she's so unimpressed that she shows them to her neighbor, who happens to be the District Attorney, lso a born again, fundamentalist Christian, who by the way is coming up for election. The DA is also highly unimpressed with the artistic merit of the images, but is suddenly impressed with the chance of getting pre election headlines.

One Friday evening Joe Stopbath is having dinner with his family and the doorbell rings. There are six policemen there with search and arrest warrant. He's taken away from his family in handcuffs and his house is searched from top to bottom. His leather bound portfolio is taken as evidence because two images of Vixin are in it, along with other nude images of models he has hired from MM, most of whom are 18 to 22 and "look young". 

Joe spends the weekend in a cell with Bubba as he can't get bail until he goes before a judge and no judges are available until Monday. Saturday morning his wife opens the newspaper and sees Joe's photo on the front page, with headlines announcing "Local photographer arrested for child pornography".  By Monday AM, she had received 75 phone calls from both strangers and friends saying she is "going to hell" for being married to a pedophile and child pornographer.  On Monday, his wife posts the equity in their home for bail and Joe Stopbath comes home. He learns hi skids are crying because the parents of their friends will no longer allow their kids to play with his kids.

On Tuesday news headlines revel the child porn investigation is continuing, that the crime lab has examined his computer and found evidence of "interstate links" which are "of interest" to the prosecutors. It seems that while surfing the internet, he found himself on sites showing child porn, bondage and other fetish photography. "Investigation continues"!

On Tuesday he goes to work, just like everyday for the past 20 years, but learns his boss wants to see him. His boss, general manager of a conservative firm, is sad' He consoles Joe, saying he knows Joe is not involved in child porn, but the firm is very conservative and the manager has responsibility to protect the owners. "We just can not let your bad publicity damage our business." Joe get a full month severance pay when he is fired.  Joe's friends are interviewed by the police. The parents of his daughters friends are interviewed, as are the kids themselves. "What happened in all of these sleep overs you did at his house?"

A few months pass and Joe has spent his life savings and taken a second mortgage on his house to pay a criminal defense lawyer to represent him. His wife has taken a job at KFC to bring in some cash, since Joe can not find a job while awaiting trial. His oldest daughter drops out of the local community college, since they can no longer pay her tuition and takes a job at a local strip club. His youngest son is getting in fights at school and has become clinically depressed.

Finally his trial comes! It lasts four days but his lawyer does a good job and the jury acquits him. He goes home a free man. But the next day his car is repossessed since they could not make payments and he has received letters from his mortgage banker threatening to take his house for non payment.  He's a free man, but his former friends are talking about how he would not have been arrested and tried if nothing had been going on. His former employer has filled his job and has no openings. But he is innocent of being  a child pornographer!

Yes, non sexual photography of under age kids is probably legal, but so what. Wonder if Joe believes photographing that 16 year old Vixin was worth it?

*******

The truth here is,... even though he was innocent, he was tried by "bible thumpers"- and found guilty.  There really isn't a sense of real judgment and true laws, in this country.