From: Adam <""4thwormcastfromthemolehill\"{at}the field.near
the bridge">

http://news.com.com/Police+blotter+Teens+prosecuted+for+racy+photos/2100-1030_3
-6157857.html?tag=newsmap

"There's a problem with that: Technically, those images constitute
child pornography. That's what 16-year-old Amber and 17-year-old Jeremy,
her boyfriend, both residents of the Tallahassee, Fla., area, learned
firsthand. (Court documents include only their initials, A.H. and J.G.W.,
so we're using these pseudonyms to make this story a little easier to
read.)

On March 25, 2004, Amber and Jeremy took digital photos of themselves naked
and engaged in unspecified "sexual behavior." The two sent the
photos from a computer at Amber's house to Jeremy's personal e-mail
address. Neither teen showed the photographs to anyone else.

Court records don't say exactly what happened next--perhaps the parents
wanted to end the relationship and raised the alarm--but somehow Florida
police learned about the photos.

Amber and Jeremy were arrested. Each was charged with producing, directing
or promoting a photograph featuring the sexual conduct of a child. Based on
the contents of his e-mail account, Jeremy was charged with an extra count
of possession of child pornography. "

How can you charge children with child porn when you're meant to fancy
someone of your own age so of course children fancy children?

Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5