They want to at least charge the girls for child pornography possession. This case does not count as CP under the legal definition. Understandable. That's how the law works.Shio said:No. I don't see it as pornographic. No more than a picture of a young child at the beach or running around naked in the home. Of course in this case the images are more disturbing and sickening even, but no more pornographic.RedEyesBlackGamer said:Do you at least agree with the child pornography charges a few people are calling for? That isn't really subjective. They recorded and released nude footage of a 11 year old boy.Shio said:snip
Pornography as defined my Merriam Webster: "the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement."
I don't think the images are intended to sexual arouse people.
EDIT: to add to this, nude images of children are perfectly legal. So long as they aren't erotic. See: nudist images and art, etc., etc.
I however see no mention of any other sexually related crimes that these acts would fall under. I even noticed in the fox report that someone involved in the case said that she didn't want to "ruin the girls reputations," despite the fact that the whole purpose of this attack was to ruin the victim's reputation.
It makes me wonder if any of these people are even qualified to uphold the law, personally.