Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/05/04

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: Pornography/Question
From: "Bryan Caldwell" <>
Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 17:05:02 -0700
References: <v04011702b537a72e12a3@[]>

Here's an excerpt from the California Penal Code (1997 version - I'm at home
and my current version is at the office), Section 11165.16(e):

"Any commercial film and photographic print processor who has knowledge of
or observes, within the scope of his or her professional capacity or
employment, any film, photograph, videotape, negative, or slide depicting a
child under the age of 16 years engaged in an act of sexual conduct, shall
report the instance of suspected child abuse to the law enforcement agency
having jurisdiction over the case immediately, or as soon as practically
possible, by telephone, and shall prepare and send a written report of it
with a copy of the film, photograph, videotape, negative, or slide attached
within 36 hours of receiving the information concerning the incident. As
used in this subidivision, "sexual conduct" means any of the following:

(1) Sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital,
anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite
sex or between humans and animals.

(2) Penetration of the vagina or rectum by any object.

(3) Masturbation for the purposes of sexual stimulation of the viewer.

(4) Sadomasochistic abuse for the purpose of sexual stimulation of the

(5) Exhibition of the genitals, pubic, or rectal areas of any person for the
purpose of sexual stimulation of the viewer."

Subdividison (h) provides:

"The reporting duties under this section are individual, and no supervisor
or administrator may impede or inhibit the reporting duties, and no person
making a report shall be subject to any sanction for making the report."

And, Penal Code 11172 provides:

"(a) No child care custodian, health practitioner, firefighter, clergy
member, animal control officer, humane society officer, employee of a child
protective agency, child visitation monitor, or commercial film and
photographic print processor who reports a known or suspected instance of
child abuse shall be civilly or criminally liable for any report required or
authorized by this article."

A commercial film and photographic print processor is defined as: "any
person who develops exposed photographic film into negatives, slides, or
prints, or who makes prints from negatives or slides, for compensation. The
term includes any employee of such a person; it does not include a person
who develops film or makes prints for a public agency." [my guess is that
the year 2000 version of the Penal Code probably includes digital imaging].

The Penal Code includes similar provisions for child care custodians
(including teachers and other school-related positions), health
practitioners, employees of a child protective agency, child visitiation
monitors, firefighters, animal control officers, humane society officers,
and clergy (when reporting would not violate penitental communication).
These provisions are not limited to viewing photographs.

This, of course, only applies in California, but other states have similar

The issue is #5, above. If a photograph is simply a nude photo of someone
under 16 and an employee of your local 1hr. film lab feels that it's for the
sexual stimulation of the viewer, they must report. If a prosecutor agrees
with them, charges will likely be filed.

Failure to report in violation of California law is punishable by 6 months
in jail and/or a $1,000 fine.


- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Guy Bennett" <>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2000 3:20 PM
Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: Pornography/Question

> >Is it actually illegal to take a nude picture of a child, even your
> >grandchild?
> no way has yet been invented to detect whether the photographer was
> or not when progenitorial pictures have been taken. we can deduce that it
> is therefore safe to take nude pictures.
> >Is it actually illegal to posess such a picture, even in the
> >family photo album?
> no, for the reason explained above.
> >And while we're at it, what country is this, anyway?
> it ever remains the land of the big and the home of the brother.
> what ho!
> guy

In reply to: Message from Guy Bennett <> (Re: [Leica] Re: Pornography/Question)