"Voyeuring a 12-year-old girl's bathing scene is not subject to punishment for child pornography" will be decided

A man who was sentenced to imprisonment for 22 years on grounds of child pornography as having hidden behaviors in her daughter's shower room in the United States, was appealed as "a girl's shower scene is not subject to child pornography provision" The State Supreme Court ruled that the decision to destroy the trial decision was made. The judgment as to whether it corresponds to "child pornography" seems to be broken.

Court says secretly filming nude young girls in bathroom is not child porn | Ars Technica

The case which became a problem is whether or not the defendant Thomas · Whitt said the act of hiding a 12-year old's daughter and a 14-year old daughter's friend taking a shower in the shower falls under the child pornographic penalty I was disputed. The High Court ruled that he was sentenced to prison sentence for 22 years imprisonment for acts of Why voyeuring the shower room for the purpose of satisfying his sexual desire for two months whitewas violated the child pornography law but the Tennessee State Supreme Court, "The video recorded by Why do not hit pornography", the high court decision was abandoned.

The cause of the judgment being broken down into two is attributed to how to define "child pornography" subject to punishment of child pornography. Whether childhood pornography falls under most states in the United States is judged by "whether to stimulate sexual emotions". In the movie that was being filmed this time, a part of the naked body of the girl taking a shower is reflected, and the high court judged that it is "one that stimulates sexual emotions", that is, "falls under the category of child pornography" It was.

On the contrary, the Tennessee State Supreme Court stated, "Subjective and too ambiguous judgment on whether or not sexual emotions are stimulated is not valid," and in judging whether child sexual pornography is appropriate or not It is an opinion that how people and viewers will feel does not matter. And whether it corresponds to child pornography or not is said to be judged by the contents itself that the movie conveys.

The Supreme Court of Tennessee defines child pornography as "sex of minors or sexual acts similar to sexual intercourse or exposed undergrowth" and judges objectively the contents reflected in the movie excluding subjectivity After saying that, "Since the girl's vulva is not reflected in the movie whom Whydo took voyeuristically, it is not an act of sex or sexual act similarity" act of daily life "It does not fall under the category of child pornography" I am judging.

If the Tennessee State Supreme Court judges according to the subjectivity of the photographer or the person viewing the image, for example, the Tennessee State Supreme Court ruled that arbitrary judgment that it can be regarded as child pornography even for acts of taking a picture of the first bath of a baby after birth It is complaining of inconvenience.

in Note, Posted by darkhorse_log