#Posttome nude newstar diana custom series

#Posttome nude newstar diana custom series

International Florida-based business Newstar Enterprise, which was founded in 2005, built, maintained, hosted, and operated what appeared to be a series of legitimate child modeling websites called Newstar Websites on servers based in the US and abroad.Īccording to court documents, Newstar was in reality 'an internet-based business aimed at for-profit sexual exploitation of vulnerable children under the guise of 'child modeling'.' Otherwise, the law might prohibit someone taking an innocent picture of their child in a bathing suit, or in their pajamas, or even in a ballerina costume.Four Floridians have been charged in connection with a child sexual abuse material (CSAM) subscription service that produced millions of images and videos of sexualized minors. You may also ask why would such images not be banned? An educated guess would be that it would be very hard to police because it is much harder to figure out what is 'not OK' when a minor is clothed and not doing anything explicitly sexual. any photo a pedophile finds attractive may well be any photo of a child, clothed or otherwise) would be an unworkable standard. People can have all sorts of things that they find sexually attractive, and so trying to ban based on sexual preferences (e.g. Even if the website promotes its images towards satisfying the sexual desires of its users, the way the law is written is not aimed at how the users end up using the images, but is simply a prohibition on what the image can contain. The closest we can fit these images would be 'lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area', but because the minors are clothed, this prohibition would not fit very well. (iii) graphic or simulated lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person (i) graphic sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex, or lascivious simulated sexual intercourse where the genitals, breast, or pubic area of any person is exhibited (B) For purposes of subsection 8(B) of this section, “sexually explicit conduct” means. (v) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person (i) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), “sexually explicit conduct” means actual or simulated.

We then have to figure out what is 'sexually explicit conduct' - is it a minor, dressed in underwear, with a sultry look? 18 USC § 2256(2) defines 'exually explicit conduct' as (C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct.

(B) such visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct or (A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct Ny visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where. For example, going by your example, we can look at a relevant federal statute, 18 USC § 2256(8), which defines child pornography as: Therefore, in order to figure out if something is illegal, we look not to morality but to the law as it is written. Illegality is generally not related to morality.