Common Sense Needed On Child Porn Prosecutions

Child pornography is disgusting. The U.S. has very strong laws to prevent and punish the distribution of child pornography, and those laws should be enforced vigorously.

The primary reason to prohibit child pornography is to protect children from sexual exploitation. We have a friend who used to prosecute kiddie porn as an assistant U.S. attorney and he told us that much of what is out there is absolutely disgusting and lurid "beyond belief," reflecting obvious exploitation of children, sometimes as young as 1-year old.

Some recent developments, however, have us concerned about a certain lack of common sense in the prosecution of these laws.

Earlier this week, a Virginia state court judge dismissed charges against a Loudoun County school official for possession of pornography. The defendant, an assistant principal at a high school, was charged because he had possession of a cell phone photo of a female student taken by another student that allegedly was sexually explicit.

The assistant principal, however, was investigating rumors that students were circulating nude photos, and the judge ruled that the photos in question were not sexually explicit enough to constitute child pornography. Thank goodness the judge exercised some common sense in this case, but the poor assistant principal's life has no doubt been utter hell since he was charged in the case. The dismissal will hardly make up for the pain he has endured over the past few months while the charges hung over his head.

In other cases, teens themselves have been charged with possession of child pornography and distribution of child pornography for photographing themselves and sending the pictures to other teens. This practice, called "sexting" falls in the category of "stupid things teens do."

While sexting is not to be condoned, the solution is not prosecution of teenagers for felonies under child pornography laws. What a waste of law enforcement resources!

Recent court decisions have also ruled that possession and distribution of cartoon images of children in sexually explicit situations can be prosecuted under child pornography laws. While we think this is a closer issue than "sexting" or prosecuting an assistant principal who in good faith is investigating a school issue, we're uncomfortable putting cartoon images on the same plane as those of real children.

We're sure that some of the cartoon imagery can, no doubt, be as--or even more--disgusting than photographs or film. But how does one tell the age of a cartoon figure?

Child pornography laws are quite broad, and often vague, to make sure pornographers can't evade them on technicalities. Prosecutors, however, must apply some measure of common sense to such broad laws; frivolous prosecutions only erode support for such laws, weakening public resolve.