Forums | MacLife
You are not logged in.
#1 2003-04-25 7:09 pm
- Pariah
- James Carville Fan..
- From: Belly Of The Beast, Oklahoma!
- Registered: 2001-05-24
- Posts: 18339
Non-Nude Teen Modeling Photog-Not Guilty
http://www.msnbc.com/local/rmn/drmn_1811267.asp?cp1=1
I am curious about this forums reactions to this.
I see serious 1st amendment issues here.
Personally I think this is a case of malicious persecution.
"and it's not surprising that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
Barack Obama
Offline
#2 2003-04-25 7:13 pm
Re: Non-Nude Teen Modeling Photog-Not Guilty
I don't know. First of all, it's partial nudity...
I mean, 17-year-olds, no problem of course... 13? I dunno.
It's all relative. I can't tell the age difference between many female teenagers, especially asian ones.
Offline
#3 2003-04-25 7:20 pm
- NokX
- Member of the Month
- From: Knoxville, TN
- Registered: 2000-07-17
- Posts: 6301
Re: Non-Nude Teen Modeling Photog-Not Guilty
The district attorney had charged Grady with 13 counts of causing, inducing or enticing children to be sexually exploited; 13 counts of possessing sexually exploitive material; and 13 counts of preparing and publishing sexually exploitive material.
Authorities said photos of the girls were posted on a Web site.
But Judge James F. Macrum Jr. ruled that prosecutors needed to show that Grady was sexually gratified or aroused by the material.
are judicial system is jacked up.
the next article we're going to see is a guy having 200lbs of crack in his house and going scot-free because they don't have proof he was using it.
the guy had exploitive material of 'children'. that's wrong, period.
unreal.
"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it." Abraham Lincoln
Offline
#4 2003-04-25 7:21 pm
Re: Non-Nude Teen Modeling Photog-Not Guilty
Ever heard of art, NokX?
Offline
#5 2003-04-25 7:23 pm
Re: Non-Nude Teen Modeling Photog-Not Guilty
The district attorney had charged Grady with 13 counts of causing, inducing or enticing children to be sexually exploited; 13 counts of possessing sexually exploitive material; and 13 counts of preparing and publishing sexually exploitive material.
Authorities said photos of the girls were posted on a Web site.
But Judge James F. Macrum Jr. ruled that prosecutors needed to show that Grady was sexually gratified or aroused by the material.are judicial system is jacked up.
the next article we're going to see is a guy having 200lbs of crack in his house and going scot-free because they don't have proof he was using it.
the guy had exploitive material of 'children'. that's wrong, period.
unreal.
Well, I mean, what if he was planning to sell it to a lingerie catalogue or something. Again, I don't think a 17-year-old counts as a child.
Offline
#6 2003-04-25 7:26 pm
- NokX
- Member of the Month
- From: Knoxville, TN
- Registered: 2000-07-17
- Posts: 6301
Re: Non-Nude Teen Modeling Photog-Not Guilty
Ever heard of art, NokX?
nice try drama-queen. you love getting people worked-up. you did that constantly in MA.
"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it." Abraham Lincoln
Offline
#7 2003-04-25 7:27 pm
- NokX
- Member of the Month
- From: Knoxville, TN
- Registered: 2000-07-17
- Posts: 6301
Re: Non-Nude Teen Modeling Photog-Not Guilty
The district attorney had charged Grady with 13 counts of causing, inducing or enticing children to be sexually exploited; 13 counts of possessing sexually exploitive material; and 13 counts of preparing and publishing sexually exploitive material.
Authorities said photos of the girls were posted on a Web site.
But Judge James F. Macrum Jr. ruled that prosecutors needed to show that Grady was sexually gratified or aroused by the material.are judicial system is jacked up.
the next article we're going to see is a guy having 200lbs of crack in his house and going scot-free because they don't have proof he was using it.
the guy had exploitive material of 'children'. that's wrong, period.
unreal.Well, I mean, what if he was planning to sell it to a lingerie catalogue or something. Again, I don't think a 17-year-old counts as a child.
Law: Under 17 is a minor.
Slade: 17 year old is an adult.
"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it." Abraham Lincoln
Offline
#8 2003-04-25 7:30 pm
Re: Non-Nude Teen Modeling Photog-Not Guilty
"Prosecutors had charged Grady with sexual exploitation of 13 girls, ages 13 to 17."
It doesn't say, but I'm guessing most of those girls are on the older side of the spectrum. I don't think this guy was looking for kiddie porn, but he just was looking for "young adult models" and didn't bother to check the ages... I've seen 14-15 year olds who look 18.
Offline
#9 2003-04-25 7:36 pm
- KingFred
- is enjoying his status as
- Royal Wombat
- Registered: 2002-05-09
- Posts: 7541
Re: Non-Nude Teen Modeling Photog-Not Guilty
The district attorney had charged Grady with 13 counts of causing, inducing or enticing children to be sexually exploited; 13 counts of possessing sexually exploitive material; and 13 counts of preparing and publishing sexually exploitive material.
Authorities said photos of the girls were posted on a Web site.
But Judge James F. Macrum Jr. ruled that prosecutors needed to show that Grady was sexually gratified or aroused by the material.are judicial system is jacked up.
the next article we're going to see is a guy having 200lbs of crack in his house and going scot-free because they don't have proof he was using it.
the guy had exploitive material of 'children'. that's wrong, period.
unreal.
Woah, back up here...
You've seen these pictures? You know they were 'exploitive' how, exactly? By this article? It hardly describes the pics. So explain how you know this.
And why did you type the word "children" in quotes? Are they children or are they 'children' (not really but we'll just 'say' they are)
Exploring the intertubes
Offline
#10 2003-04-25 7:50 pm
Re: Non-Nude Teen Modeling Photog-Not Guilty
Ever heard of art, NokX?
nice try drama-queen. you love getting people worked-up. you did that constantly in MA.
That's quite possibly the worst argument I've ever seen.
Offline
#11 2003-04-25 10:00 pm
- Gr@sshopper
- Redtailed mountain goat
- From: Claremont CA
- Registered: 2001-05-01
- Posts: 1584
Re: Non-Nude Teen Modeling Photog-Not Guilty
the 15 year old could be executed for crimes they commit. Just to put things into perspective.
Offline
#12 2003-04-26 12:38 am
- Pariah
- James Carville Fan..
- From: Belly Of The Beast, Oklahoma!
- Registered: 2001-05-24
- Posts: 18339
Re: Non-Nude Teen Modeling Photog-Not Guilty
I am impressed that we havent had the (expected by me) John Walsh hystaria over this.
Perhaps there is hope .
"and it's not surprising that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
Barack Obama
Offline
#13 2003-04-26 12:41 am
Re: Non-Nude Teen Modeling Photog-Not Guilty
Well, this was in Colorado where the age of consent is 17. They also seem to have a flexible scale that can put the age of consent at 15. Here's a link:
Age of Consent
And a quote from that page:
EDITOR'S NOTE:
You ever see the back of a twenty dollar bill... on weed? Jon Stewart
Offline
#14 2003-04-26 1:15 am
Re: Non-Nude Teen Modeling Photog-Not Guilty
Using an age number as an indicator of ability to consent to a sexual relationship is about as accurate as predicting the weather based on the percentage of a piece of bread browned by a toaster oven.
Offline
#15 2003-04-26 1:17 am
Re: Non-Nude Teen Modeling Photog-Not Guilty
Ever heard of art, NokX?
nice try drama-queen. you love getting people worked-up. you did that constantly in MA.
That's quite possibly the worst argument I've ever seen.
near child porn isnt art dude.
Just like back in Saigon! Eh, slick?
Offline
#16 2003-04-26 5:27 am
- delta wolph
- Member
- From: SoCal
- Registered: 2002-12-30
- Posts: 3471
Re: Non-Nude Teen Modeling Photog-Not Guilty
O MY GOD! KIDS WEARING BIKINIS! That NEVER happens!
Gimme a smurfin break 
Offline
#17 2003-04-26 7:54 am
- registered_user
- bulletproof
- From: padding: zero-pixels;
- Registered: 2000-12-19
- Posts: 16026
- Website
Re: Non-Nude Teen Modeling Photog-Not Guilty
Does someone here actually think that it should be illegeal to photograph children who are wearing clothing? That's smurfed up.
From the sound of it, these girls probably wear less to the beach (not that there's a beach in CO, but you get the point), and it's not a stretch to say that a bikini is partial nudity. There's nothing wrong with that. Get a grip and can the dumb accusations.
Think of it this way: The guy said he was taking photos for the girls, to help them get modelling jobs and what not. So, he probably showed the pics, nay gave them to the girls and their parents.
This is not a porn case, get off the witch hunt and leave people alone.
Offline
#18 2003-04-26 10:30 am
Re: Non-Nude Teen Modeling Photog-Not Guilty
http://www.msnbc.com/local/rmn/drmn_1811267.asp?cp1=1
I am curious about this forums reactions to this.
I see serious 1st amendment issues here.
Personally I think this is a case of malicious persecution.
Your local high school probably allows girls to attend classes with halter tops, exposed navels with navel rings, cleavage showing, miniskirts, hip-hugging jeans with exposed midriffs, etc.
Your local beach shows bikini-clad 15 year olds and the like.
Kids seemed like they were "beach-legal." I don't think there was a case for porn here that was compelling enough.
AutoJC
"
Offline
#19 2003-04-26 10:32 am
Re: Non-Nude Teen Modeling Photog-Not Guilty
Ever heard of art, NokX?
nice try drama-queen. you love getting people worked-up. you did that constantly in MA.
That's quite possibly the worst argument I've ever seen.
near child porn isnt art dude.
"Near child porn" isn't child porn, either.
If this case were about naked girls in sex acts, that's child porn. Or just naked boys or girls is child porn.
You go to your local beach and you'll find plenty of scantily clad teenage girls. That's not porn.
AutoJC
"
Offline
#20 2003-04-26 10:39 am
- Alpha Moonbase
- Guest
Re: Non-Nude Teen Modeling Photog-Not Guilty
It's cases like these that has made me abandon my photography career.
Now I have an abandoned studio full of equipment. All I'll shoot now is products. Though I did shoot a wedding last August.
#21 2003-04-26 12:41 pm
Re: Non-Nude Teen Modeling Photog-Not Guilty
Ever heard of art, NokX?
nice try drama-queen. you love getting people worked-up. you did that constantly in MA.
That's quite possibly the worst argument I've ever seen.
near child porn isnt art dude.
That's not true. Look at roman art. It's full of naked teenagers.
Offline
#22 2003-04-26 12:45 pm
- Tallgeese
- Sternly Advising
- From: Pool Party
- Registered: 2000-10-17
- Posts: 33812
Re: Non-Nude Teen Modeling Photog-Not Guilty
Ever heard of art, NokX?
nice try drama-queen. you love getting people worked-up. you did that constantly in MA.
That's quite possibly the worst argument I've ever seen.
near child porn isnt art dude.
Close only counts with horseshoes and hand grenades
I still believe in liberalism today as much as I ever did, but, oh, there was a happy time when I believed in liberals.
Offline
#23 2003-04-26 1:07 pm
- ClayH
- Member
- From: Texas
- Registered: 2001-07-21
- Posts: 1556
Re: Non-Nude Teen Modeling Photog-Not Guilty
It counts with nukes too Tallgeese.
I don't think being in Roman "art" legitimizes something... they were horrible freaks. Good riddance.
As for the story; kind of retarded. The prosecutor probably just wants to look good.
I'm going to leave it at that.
Offline
#24 2003-04-26 2:49 pm
- petikas
- Member
- From: Cyprus
- Registered: 2000-11-12
- Posts: 3601
Re: Non-Nude Teen Modeling Photog-Not Guilty
pics please! 
The methods of science are manifestly effective, having made massive humanitarian contributions to society. It is this very effectiveness which the purveyors of mystical philosophies attack, because they recognise in it the chief threat to the belief-based source of their power and financial reward. -Harry Kroto, Nobel Laureate
Offline
#25 2003-04-26 3:34 pm
Re: Non-Nude Teen Modeling Photog-Not Guilty
It counts with nukes too Tallgeese.
I don't think being in Roman "art" legitimizes something... they were horrible freaks. Good riddance.
As for the story; kind of retarded. The prosecutor probably just wants to look good.
No doubt, the Romans did a lot of things which aren't "kosher" today, but you won't find an art teacher on the planet who would say that Roman sculpture isn't art.
Offline
