Utah case hinges on obscenity definition
 

(March 8) Child pornography charges against a former Utah television weatherman and his business partner may hinge on whether photos the two men posted on the Internet of young girls in lingerie meet the federal definition of sexually explicit conduct. A defense attorney argues that as long as the children aren?t naked, the photographs aren?t sexually explicit.

The rest of the story



While this does not apply directly to us, because of the content the guys were using, it will be interesting to see how this does effect us.

Eeeeeesh.

Ugh. Blame porn.

The biggest problem in this is that at the end of the day, our industry gets tricked into having to support these dimwads because if they lose, the potential is that all of 2257 goes to shit because the definition of sexually explicit as a legal construct could be changed.

All or nothing. Black or white. right or wrong. It's a new world order.

Alex

These guys ARE exploiting the kids, but know the laws and are keeping to the letter of them, if not the spirit! And if this guy Duhamel lives in Bountiful, is he a Mormon? I could easily see how living in a Mormon community would allow these men access to numerous little girls -- heck they could even "marry" the girls at age 14.

I think this is a case of a couple of sick fucks who are just a little too smart for their own good.

very creepy stuff and the parents where in on it yuck

i hope justice will not be delayed and denied by some technical definition of child pornography... though it is very important, the magistrates of law should never fail to protect the oppressed and abused