Radosh.net

reality is better than fiction. who said that.

I'm pretty sure this still constitutes a federal crime, even without the display of vag. The U.S. Code defines child porn to include "graphic or simulated lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person," and the most recent Eichenwald exposé notes that "courts have ruled that... the mere presence of clothing on a photographed child was not, in itself, adequate to declare the image lawful."

From that story: The leading precedent on child pornography involving clothed minors is a federal case known as United States v. Knox... In that 1994 case, the Federal Court of Appeals upheld the conviction of the pedophile, Stephen Knox, saying explicitly that clothing alone did not automatically mean that images of children were legal.

“The harm Congress attempted to eradicate by enacting the child pornography laws is present when a photographer unnaturally focuses on a minor child’s clothed genital area with the obvious intent to produce an image sexually arousing to pedophiles,” the court’s ruling says. The term "pedophiles," presumably, applies to anyone who was aroused by the Miss USA photos, regardless of how old you thought she was.

If that legal precedent isn't enough to convict the entire blogosphere, prosecutors could focus on the one picture that features -- to use the legal term -- girl-on-girl buttlicking. Sexual intercourse is defined by law to include "genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal." Bad times.

One thing I'm unclear on is whether it's illegal to create, display, possess, enjoy, etc., pictures of a clothed minor in which just the breasts are the focus, with "the obvious intent to produce an image sexually arousing to pedophiles."

If that's the case, they'll have to build a new prison complex just for Uncle Grambo fans. He's been bovs'ing on Amanda Bynes' respective tees since she was 16. It'll also mean trouble for anyone who ever visited MySpace, whose Internet cache will surely include plenty of poses from the prodigiously racked Snorg Tees model -- who was 17 when most of those pics were snapped.

Sorry for the long comment here -- I've been stewing over the preposterous ramifications of these laws since the Unethicist column. I mean, regardless of how you define "pornography" or "lascivious" or "minor," I think we can all agree that Dakota Fanning is so fucking hot.

(Miss USA, Miss Nevada, whatever. They're all underage in our hearts.)

Thanks, Dean. The other thing worth mentioning is that as the Eichenwald/Nathan/Salon dustup proved, there is no journalistic exception for viewing kiddie porn. So even though TMZ didn't print the uncensored photos, it broke the law the moment it aquired those photos, regardless of how they were eventually published. The dubious news value of them makes no difference.

I really, really want to report someone.

Presumably officials at Miss USA -- Trump himself? -- also saw/stored these photos. Can we bring him down too?

But if you click on your "sometimes not" link it says that she misspoke and that she was actually 19 in the photos. "TAMPA, FLORIDA - Miss Nevada, Katie Rees is issuing a correction on the statement released by her attorney yesterday regarding some photos that were published of her on the internet. That press release stated that she was 17 years old when the photos were taken. Miss Rees’ actual age when the aforementioned photos were taken was 19."

WAY TO SPOIL IT!!

Alice, the Snorg Tees model, rules the universe.

http://www.geocities.com/alicefansociety