You will be arrested for reading this post

Unlike White Rabbit, these days most of my cases come from perverts who like little children. They tend to have loads of money and don't really relish the idea of going to prison because they are likely to become victims themselves. I feel sorry for the collectors of kiddie porn since most of them are indeed collectors, few actually produce.  I don't have much sympathy for someone who is actually cranking out the stuff, but I do feel sorry for the poor sod who thinks they can safely download it...

Only to find a knock on the door from the fuzz.  Usually law enforcement doesn't go after the small time collector or it would be like busting pot smokers.  I've seen the LEO facilities where they can see someone downloading images in realtime.  You see these images are catalogued and have hash markings that make them as obvious as painting yourself blaze orange and walking naked down the street.  The penalties are also pretty draconian and include being civilly sued.  So, not only do you face the humiltation of arrest, conviction, being sentenced, registering as a sex offender, you are also looking at a bill of up to US$150k per image!

Ouch!


I mentioned in my previous post on this topic that:

Depictions of even a clothed child can violate law (E.g.,18 U.S.C. §§ 2252(a)(2), (4) and 2256(2)(E)) if they constitute "lascivious" exhibitions of the genitalia or pubic area. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has defined "lascivious" as "tending to excite lust; lewd; indecent; obscene; sexual impurity; tending to deprave the morals in respect to sexual relations."

So, my question is are the depictions such that they are "tending to excite lust". Although, that is a pretty vague concept. Is a picture of child in a long flannel granny nightgown sitting with her legs spread child pornography even if you can't see anything? What exactly excites lust. Could this picture excite lust? I mean her pose seems a bit coquettish to me.

Could this picture of Brittany Murphy be considered child pornography since the subject doesn't really even need to be a child either?  Better yet, I've posted this picture of Alice Liddell: is it chiild pornography using the definition?  Sure, Carroll produced more juicy pics which I am not going to post here, but you can see if you are so inclined (or even if you are just curious).   I mean Plate III could be within the definition of child pornography.  Although, has the statute of limitations passed given these images are 150 years old?

For those not in the know, Rev. Charles Dodgson, AKA Lewis Carroll, took pictures of nude little girls. I'll post the Alice pic here even though that is pretty racy as well, but not as racy as the one of Evelyn Hatch. We can't say too much about this portion of his work since approximately 60% of his original photographic portfolio is now missing.  Although one can speculate Could some "lucky" collector who happens to turn up these pictures be in for some serious legal headaches?

I have to admit to seriously speculating on Dodgson's paedophila given that his relationship with Alice Liddell was "expunged".  The family burned the letters and Dodgson "deleted" his diary entries for that period.  Leaving us with a picture that could earn the good Reverend a stint in choky from suspicious minds.

I will also add in the painting Making a Train by Seymour Joseph Guy which could fit the definition of child pornography.  Especially since the blurb mentions "The commingling of sexual allure and girlish innocence was prevalent in Guy's era, as seen in photographs by Lewis Carroll and Julia Margaret Cameron."  Personally, I found the fact that one can stare at naked women all days in an art museum, yet get in trouble for girlie magazines to be a bit of hypocracy.  In this case, one can stare at a "salacious" picture of a little girl in a museum.

So, technically the Alice Liddell pic could be "kiddie porn" although we again wish for John Mortimer to help straighten out this mess.  Although, I think he would be proud of my record in this regard to toot my own horn.  But where does the line get drawn between art and pornography, a dangerous collector and just some idiot who thought he could get away at looking at kiddie porn?  Does the law need to be so draconian for someone who possesses an image or two who isn't the threat that is posed by the relative who turns molestation into an cottage industry?

Don't forget that the book Show Me! has been considered child pornography. So, watch out if you have a copy lying about your house!

Hello Little Girl!

This was a song by the Fourmost, a Mersey Beat Group. The song "Hello Little Girl" is a song written by John Lennon and Paul McCartney in 1957 and was used as one of the songs at The Beatles unsuccessful Decca audition in 1962. It is the first song ever written by John Lennon. Of course, Bryan Epstein passed around the fame and talent amongst the Mersey Beat Groups.

But that's not what I want to talk about. I want to talk about contesting a Search Warrant for Child Pornography.

It seems our client was caught by a computer technician who was doing a scan of his hard drive. The scan turned up pictures of scantily dressed children in sexually suggestive poses. We are contesting the search warrant as being without basis. The question is what is the magic wording for child pornography in the Statute. My senior, who never cracks a law book, was upset that I even made the suggestion. But the wording in question is:

any visual depiction, if—
(A) the producing of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct or the simulation of such conduct.

Depictions of even a clothed child can violate law (E.g.,18 U.S.C. §§ 2252(a)(2), (4) and 2256(2)(E)) if they constitute "lascivious" exhibitions of the genitalia or pubic area. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has defined "lascivious" as "tending to excite lust; lewd; indecent; obscene; sexual impurity; tending to deprave the morals in respect to sexual relations."

So, my question is are the depictions such that they are "tending to excite lust". Although, that is a pretty vague concept. Is a picture of child in a long flannel granny nightgown sitting with her legs spread child pornography even if you can't see anything? What exactly excites lust. Could this picture excite lust? I mean her pose seems a bit coquettish to me.

Also a pedophile is likely to have feelings of lust for children even if they are modestly dressed whatever their demeanour. On the other hand, most people are repulsed by child pornography. And, having seen enough of it as evidence in the cases I've worked on, it is pretty revolting. So are we using a reasonable person test here? Or if it looks disgusting, it must be disgusting. Where is John Mortimer when we need him most!

Besides writing the Rumpole stories, John Mortimer is best known for defending cases relating to claims of obscenity which according to Mortimer were "alleged to be testing the frontiers of tolerance". The thing is that we aren't testing the limits of tolerance, but how far can the law go?

Anyway, we are lucky in that our law isn't as vague as US federal law. The point I am making here is that one needs to be aware of the wording of the Statute when interpreting law. Although, it is a hard concept for most people to grasp since my Senior and some Judges have problems with this. It doesn't suprise me that most laymen has this problem as well.

Anyway, the prosecution must make a case that the basis of the Search Warrant was that there was a suspicion of illegal activity, which merely scantily clad children in provocative poses, but not engaged in or simulating sex acts, does not qualify.

Footnote to this: It seems that there have been proposals in the US legislature and some state legislatures to ban child modeling sites for precisely this reason: the poses can be interpreted as child pornography.