Minnesota appeals court: Photo of nak...

Minnesota appeals court: Photo of naked girl, 11, not porn

There are 21 comments on the TwinCities.com story from Dec 1, 2009, titled Minnesota appeals court: Photo of naked girl, 11, not porn. In it, TwinCities.com reports that:

The state Court of Appeals ruled today that a photograph of an 11- or 12-year-old girl, naked from the waist up, did not constitute child pornography as defined by state law.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at TwinCities.com.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Thanks Courts

Saint Paul, MN

#1 Dec 1, 2009
For again not protecting children. This is what happens when you have liberal judges.
still laffin

Savage, MN

#2 Dec 1, 2009
Wait till Wal-Mart appeals this ruling with their 'family values' on photos.
Cindy Stainker

Chino, CA

#3 Dec 1, 2009
I wonder how this panel of judges would have ruled if it had been one of their own daughters, or the child of someone they knew.
Judge and Jury

United States

#4 Dec 1, 2009
The following three names should be remembered, and rejected the next time you see them listed on a voting ballot. Oh, wait. Never mind. Some clueless senator named amy clueless klobachar make the decision for a "life time appointment". She, not you, will decide. Makes you wonder how many photos of naked kids these "judges" have on their hard drive doesn't it? Judge Harriet Lansing for a panel that included judges Terri J. Stoneburner and Matthew E. Johnson
Not surprised

Saint Paul, MN

#5 Dec 1, 2009
C'mon forget about the photos. Why don't we concentrate on the conduct? What is a grown man doing with a half dressed 13 y.o. girl lying on a bed? I also agree that not everything is child porn. It would be stupid to charge people for having pictures of naked toddlers in their backyard tot pool.
speedy

United States

#6 Dec 1, 2009
Cindy Stainker wrote:
I wonder how this panel of judges would have ruled if it had been one of their own daughters, or the child of someone they knew.
If they are consistant in thier lunatic liberal views they would have embraced it. Sick MF's
Clueless

Saint Paul, MN

#7 Dec 1, 2009
The definition of "child" porn is the same
definition that is used in deciding whether
someone is a pedophile; pre puberty. The
courts using the example of any model "under
the age of 18" is a farce. The age of consent
is 16 and upper teens are not considered to be
a "child" by porn standards.

As for using family pictures as an example, if
the parents have them in their house that is
one thing, but transferring them from phone to
phone? That isn't "family images" anymore, it
is child porn.

The court says the case is "deeply troubling",
and even states it probably rises to a child
protection level. But it won't stop the passing
around of the pictures.
BEAM ME UP SCOTTY!
Somewhere there must be a planet where children
are sacred.
pill box

Faison, NC

#8 Dec 2, 2009
Okay, even if you accept the liberal idiotic judges ruling, why not throw the adult pervert in jail for having a young(Childs)girls bare chest photograph on his cell phone. Sounds like this idiot needs the "bubba love cell" at the jail!
bubba and his team of love machines need to have a session or two with this creep!
Wow

Minneapolis, MN

#9 Dec 2, 2009
Can't remember exact age but I think Brooke Shields was close to this same age (12 or 13) when she posed topless, with hands over her breast region for Calvin Klein.

That being said, this man sounds creepy... to suggest that it's okay for him to be taking these types of photos of young relatives (on his camera phone, no less) is just, well, creepy...
Wow

Minneapolis, MN

#10 Dec 2, 2009
pill box wrote:
Okay, even if you accept the liberal idiotic judges ruling, why not throw the adult pervert in jail for having a young(Childs)girls bare chest photograph on his cell phone. Sounds like this idiot needs the "bubba love cell" at the jail!
bubba and his team of love machines need to have a session or two with this creep!
Did see your post before posting mine... yes, this man fits the profile of either a full-fledged pedophile or a pedophile in training. Keep an eye on him. Yuck!
mikelmer

Saint Paul, MN

#11 Dec 2, 2009
Hmmmm, amazing the conclusions you all can reach, having never seen the photo.

And having NO clue as to who the judges are.
Randall

Saint Paul, MN

#12 Dec 2, 2009
Simple:

Johnson should have his Johnson removed. He's not worthy of reproduction.
Randall

Saint Paul, MN

#13 Dec 2, 2009
Gary Lee Johnson should have his Johnson removed. That is what I meant.
Rick Ross

Williston, ND

#14 Dec 2, 2009
Everyone who watched 1999 Acadamy Award winning best picture American Beauty should be locked up because one of the topless girls in that movie was under 18. Let's get on with this witch hunt already.
predictable

Saint Paul, MN

#15 Dec 2, 2009
here's a question for the legal scholars on this thread -

how do you feel about underage children taking pictures of *themselves* and sending them to girlfriends/boyfriends being charged with childporn? In cases around the country, both the party taking the picture (of themselves) and the party receiving said photos (willingly sent by the 'model') have been charged with child porn.

Obviously every parent would say that such activity is wrong, but is it 'child porn' if the underage person is question is creating the 'porn' themselves?

As for this case - dude is obviously messed up and shouldn't be in contact with children, but is a topless photo in which a girl is covering her own breasts (as I interpreted the article) really 'porn'? Morally this case is relatively easy to judge (dude is messed up), but from a legal perspective (was it really 'child porn') it definitely is not.
Wow

Minneapolis, MN

#16 Dec 3, 2009
predictable wrote:
here's a question for the legal scholars on this thread -
how do you feel about underage children taking pictures of *themselves* and sending them to girlfriends/boyfriends being charged with childporn? In cases around the country, both the party taking the picture (of themselves) and the party receiving said photos (willingly sent by the 'model') have been charged with child porn.
Obviously every parent would say that such activity is wrong, but is it 'child porn' if the underage person is question is creating the 'porn' themselves?
As for this case - dude is obviously messed up and shouldn't be in contact with children, but is a topless photo in which a girl is covering her own breasts (as I interpreted the article) really 'porn'? Morally this case is relatively easy to judge (dude is messed up), but from a legal perspective (was it really 'child porn') it definitely is not.
Okay, we're convinced, it's "artistic" photography. SMH...
idiot conservatives

Minneapolis, MN

#17 Jan 14, 2010
I absolutley 100% do not condone child pornography and what that judge did is simply inexcusable, that being said all these idiots here blaming everything thing bad on liberals can shut up and BURN IN HELL. you want to go back to fucking 4.00 dollars a gallon for gas, and an economy on the brink of epic collapse not to mention it was the idiot conservatives who started the long expensive POINTLESS war in iraq. Get real people. liberals, had core liberals like myself are saving this country from jackals like yourselves. Obama brought us back from the brink of a national crisis. Oh yes by the way we are no longer JOKES to other countries during the bush years my grandparents who live in Italy and are fullblooded Italian tell stories of how America was the ass of every joke at the bar during the bush years, now at least we have a president who is respected. have you no intelligence, self respect, or will to freely think, don't believe anything you hear on fox news, it is a radical extremeist news station who report nothing but biased one sided and often flat out untrue stories.
Superv

United States

#18 Jan 14, 2010
mikelmer wrote:
Hmmmm, amazing the conclusions you all can reach, having never seen the photo.
And having NO clue as to who the judges are.
Yep. This thread worthless without pics.
K Bar

Minneapolis, MN

#19 Jan 14, 2010
idiot conservatives wrote:
I absolutley 100% do not condone child pornography and what that judge did is simply inexcusable, that being said all these idiots here blaming everything thing bad on liberals can shut up and BURN IN HELL. you want to go back to **** 4.00 dollars a gallon for gas, and an economy on the brink of epic collapse not to mention it was the idiot conservatives who started the long expensive POINTLESS war in iraq. Get real people. liberals, had core liberals like myself are saving this country from jackals like yourselves. Obama brought us back from the brink of a national crisis. Oh yes by the way we are no longer JOKES to other countries during the bush years my grandparents who live in Italy and are fullblooded Italian tell stories of how America was the **** of every joke at the bar during the bush years, now at least we have a president who is respected. have you no intelligence, self respect, or will to freely think, don't believe anything you hear on fox news, it is a radical extremeist news station who report nothing but biased one sided and often flat out untrue stories.
I can see by your mindless prattle that you've lost your effing mind! Yes, Bush was an idiot. But the liberals are killing, NOT fixing this country! You are an Obamabot that is confusing success with failure!
Paul

UK

#20 Mar 7, 2010
Many people don't understand the difference between porn & nudity. As long as the child in the photo is NOT being abused & the child has chosen 2 pose nude, then it's ok 2 have such images. My daughter loves posing naked 4 me & 2 take personal photos of her. If a man is attracted 2 young girls but has NO desires 2 see them hurt, then this is a safe way 4 man 2 relieve his sexual frustration, without hurting any child. He is innocent & such images should be legalised.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

West Fargo Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Blacks in Fargo??? (Aug '08) 12 hr Guest 44
1996 Marshall or 2013 NDSU? (Jan '14) Aug 31 Ole MacDonald 3
Ed Schultz giving platform to Lionel. yuck Aug '17 Republicans are L... 1
Anyone know chantel (Jan '17) Jun '17 Chantel the singer 2
News West Fargo bugler presses for live taps for vet... (Oct '09) Jun '17 Anonymous 19
do white girls like mexicans (Jul '10) May '17 Latino 47
West Fargo Music Thread (Apr '12) Mar '17 lightbeamrider 41

West Fargo Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

West Fargo Mortgages