What is Reddit's opinion of
Radiant Identities?
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
By popularity on Reddit, this product is:
1 review of this product found across Reddit:
Who?
When?
Where?
>Well, on Wednesday we got our ruling. Sort of. The Third Circuit, in this opinion, decided to punt on the First Amendment issue. But the ruling was a win for the girl, a then 16-year-old from a town near Scranton, Pa. The three judges said a prosecutor could not charge her merely for appearing in a photograph without evidence she had engaged in distributing it. Click here for the Philadelphia Inquirer story; here for the NYT piece.
>In March of last year, Scranton, Pa., federal judge James M. Munley sided with the ACLU, issuing an injunction blocking Skumanick from bringing the charges, declaring that the photographs were not child pornography under Pennsylvania law and were therefore protected speech under the First Amendment.
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/03/18/third-circuit-bans-sexting-prosecution-against-minors/
Also in that ruling (from 4 years ago):
>In the first federal appeals court opinion dealing with “sexting” — the transmission of sexually explicit photographs by cellphone — a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled Wednesday that parents could block the prosecution of their children on child pornography charges for appearing in photographs found on some classmates’ cellphones.
I'm talking about teens taking/sending photos of themselves, like you know, THE TITLE OF THIS POST.
Not people sending/receiving images of others.
One by one, individual states are addressing the issue by amending their laws and federal court circuits are establishing the precedent of disallowing those prosecutions.
Here's an example of a case frequently cited as an egregious example of government ineptitude:
>in 2008, just twenty days after his eighteenth birthday, Phillip Alpert distributed nude photos of his sixteen-year-old ex-girlfriend following a heated argument. (me: to dozens of family members and friends of the girl)
NOT. SEXTING.
A common misconception is that any nude photograph of a minor is child pornography.
In almost no jurisdiction in the United States is a semi-nude or nude photograph of a minor child pornography.
You can buy a book with a topless photograph of an underaged female on the cover on Amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/Radiant-Identities-Photographs-Jock-Sturges/dp/0893815950/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1410457982&sr=8-1&keywords=radiant+identities
Typically, for an image to qualify as child pornography it has to feature explicit sexual activity.
And NO an 18 year old sending dick pics to a 14 year old girl (or vice-versa) isn't "innocent sexting". If an 18 year old doesn't have the intelligence and self-control to not do that, they probably shouldn't enjoy the other rights afforded to adults.
Here are two other books of photography featuring underaged nudity:
So, again:
Who?
When?
Where?
Popular alternatives to Radiant Identities
Soviet Bus Stops
The Artist's Way: A Spiritual Path to Higher Creativity
