Anyone see this?
 

I'm surprised, I throught they were going to throw the book at him...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...l_in_porn_case

yep..bfd

How old were the girls and how revealing were the pics?

"They were required to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was personally sexually gratified or aroused as he produced these materials, and they couldn't find that"

What type of law is this???

So basically they're saying child porn is legal as long as your not sexually gratified by it?

Prosecutors had charged Grady with sexual exploitation of 13 girls, ages 13 to 17. They showed jurors 220 pictures of the girls, who were wearing bikinis and lingerie that revealed some partial nudity.

No what they are saying is ART is legal no matter how it might offend you.

In other words just because they called it CP does not make it so in the eyes of the law.

Since I didn't see any of the photos, didn't get to listen to any of the testimony, view the evidence, or be instructed about the law by the judge in this case I can't really decide if I would have found the man guilty or not...and neither can any of you.

What type of law is this? Maybe it's a constitutional law. You know the kind, the ones where you have to be proven guilty by a jury of your peers, not just accused by the Justice Department or some local DA.

If you don't like it, why not move to Iraq? Better hurry, though! :1orglaugh

No.. They're saying that photos of minors in bikinis and lingerie isn't 'child porn'.. anymore than adults in bikinis or lingerie is 'porn'..

That's the problem with all of this nonsense.. So much emphasis is given to these kinds of cases that it takes away from the seriousness of the REAL child porn problem.

People need to stop calling everything 'child porn'..

True.. it brings the pervs out of the woodwork, but by the information given in the article, it's NOT 'child porn'..

I dont care what the law is - if I knew i guy that took seminude pictures of "13 girls, ages 13 to 17" I would beat him up - its not RIGHT to do that, no matter what the girls say, they dont know what the fuck they are doing.

Being an Adult is tied together with some responcebility, meaning - DONT FUCKING USE 13 YEAR OLD AS YOUR NUDE MODELS !!!!!!! WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH THOES GUYS??????

I think it's also important the purpose of those pics. Take for instance catalogues with clothes for kids. There are lots of young boys and girls in bikini and swimsuits over there and that is definately not child porn.

Here we go again...

Did it say anything about 'nude'? NO!

Go to the beach... you'll see teenage girls in bikinis..

What kind of lingerie were they wearing? We don't know..

What did they mean by 'partially nude'??
If the d.a. defined bikini wearing teens as 'child porn', then they could have just as easily defined showing the belly as 'partial nudity'

We don't know because we didn't see..

"bikinis and lingerie that revealed some partial nudity."

PARTIAL NUDITY ON A 13 YEAR OLD GIRL - WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU ????????

Wearing a bikini is partial nudity. Wearing shorts is partial nudity.

Lawyers love semantics.

:boid fuck you - If you ever get kids, and some strange dude invite your 13 year old daughter inside his house to take pictures of her in a Bikini - you will know what I mean.

- Im out of this thread

I have 2 daughters and 2 grandkids...

I'm not saying it's right.. I'm not saying it's tasteful..

I'm saying that it isn't child porn.

And I doubt that it was a strange dude just inviting young girls into his house... I have a feeling that the parents were involved in giving permission for the photos to be taken or there would have been more to the case than there was.

You just need to learn to separate this type of photography from child porn... as do many people..