Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Can this be a crime?

When the photographer released the nude accidental pictures of Carrie PreJean today, doesn't that constitute child pornography? She was 17 at the time and he released them, I think that will get him arrested for child porn right?


Asked by Anonymous at 12:14 AM on May. 13, 2009 in Politics & Current Events

This question is closed.
Answers (9)
  • The photographer release the photos to get a quick buck off all the controversy surrounded Carrie. It was wrong and I hope she sues him for everything he's got. Carried Prejean exercised her 1st amendment right when she gave her opinion on gay marriage. In my opinion the question should never have been asked. Perez Hilton is a moron for making this a scandel. And I for one agree with Carrie.

    Answer by Katie911 at 10:55 AM on May. 13, 2009

  • Hmm sounds like it to me. Unless there is a different age besides 18 that constitutes what is child pornography.

    Answer by Ash9724 at 12:20 AM on May. 13, 2009

  • You make a good point! I wonder too!

    Answer by yourspecialkid at 12:31 AM on May. 13, 2009

  • I have no idea who that is, but why was a child taking pornographic pictures? That would be my first question . . were the parents aware? I would imagine that an underage person would need some type of permission from their legal guardian.

    Answer by BridgetC140 at 2:29 AM on May. 13, 2009

  • LOL, how was it "...nude accidental.."? It was an accident she was standing and looking pretty towards someone and the the camera accidentally snapped the picture? LOL too funny I guess I haven't been keeping up with the latest.

    Answer by lifeasinoit at 8:09 AM on May. 13, 2009

  • lifeasinoit....

    LMAO!!! I agree, it's only "accidental" when someone is caught!! How old was this beauty pageant chick?! Is she incapable of comprehending the image of Miss USA, and yet "forgetful" of her nude photo shoot?! You'd think posing nude would be something you wouldn't readily forget! But, maybe that's just me! LOL

    Did she REALLY think the photographer wouldn't release them in order to make a name for himself..."WHOOPS! I seemed to have misplaced the binding privacy contract, so I'll just accidentally release these specific group of salacious pictures of a specific controversial beauty pageant contestant!!!" LOL

    Answer by LoriKeet at 8:27 AM on May. 13, 2009

  • That is an interesting question. I guess it would depend on the statutes of the state they occurred in.

    Answer by frogdawg at 8:53 AM on May. 13, 2009

  • To my knowledge, the pics didn't show anything. To be porn, they have to show nipples, crotch, etc. Otherwise they are just nude photos, similar to the one's that MANY teen stars. Miley Cyrus took some like that recently, didn't she?

    When Demi Moore posed pregnant and nude for the cover of a magazine, it wasn't considered porn because her nipples and crotch were covered by in her pose.

    Answer by mancosmomma at 9:29 AM on May. 13, 2009

  • Keeping on the photo issue...

    I do believe she had underwear and a bra on in those phots...

    And if her legal guardian at the time authorized the photos to be used by the photographer then legally she doesn't have a case.

    But, I do agree it was in poor taste that the photographer "accidentally" released them and IMO there was nothign wrong with her taking those photos anyway...

    Answer by ozarkgirl3 at 3:58 PM on May. 13, 2009