Jamie Lynn Spears breastfeeding photos = child porn?
 

Do you agree that this is child porn and should be prosecuted as such?

I say get a printer for home. It's not like they are lacking in the money.

However....yes, she's underage, but in all the breastfeeding pics I've seen from friends who have had kids and such, it's not like you're seeing the full on boob. They are mainly made up of the back of the head of the baby and some cleavage. Of course, there are some nipple-latching pics...which may be present in this batch of Spears' drama....but if it was just cleavage crap, then it's probably as much as you'd see w/ some chick in a two piece.

Still, I don't believe it's child porn, but it may be inappropriate in some manner.

Also...isn't possession of underage nude photos a crime? If Casey took these (yes he's a minor as well), shouldn't he be charged?

LMAO. No it's not child porn. The child exploitation took place more than 9 months ago when she got knocked up. I do believe it's been proven in court over and over that nude photography in a non-sexual situation is not illegal. There's no way her breast feeding could be anywhere near the Miley Cyrus photo.

Edited because I like to respond before I read the story thoroughly.

porn...maybe? depends. pretty crappy to steal someone's baby pictures and sell them on the internet, regardless. that's just pathetic.

Pics or it didn't happen!

No, it's not. Can we all come together and finally not care about celebrities? Please? I'll give everyone a dollar, up to 80,000 people.

I will take 80,000 not to talk about them again.

And I think the question has to do with the situation. Sure, the "celebrity" is the reason why its being talked about in the first place but because she is sixteen, is it okay for her to have nude photo's circulated?

Isn't that illegal? Especially if it's being sold?

While on a technicality it is illegal, I wouldn't call it child porn.

I don't really think of breastfeeding as nudity per se. Laws about child nudity are there to prevent sexual predators from taking advantage of minors in a sexual manner. This is about profit. These pics could possibly make the photographer hundreds of thousands of dollars from some rag.

As to it's legality, I'm not sure.

In the federal child pornography law, the definition of what is a pornographic image includes whether the image is intended to elicit a sexual response in its consumer or viewer. I believe this is the angle they are using in this situation, and due do the circumstances here I believe they have a case.

Porn? No. Idiotic? Yes.

Agreed. I say prosecute the SOBs.

Hunting down celebs is fine, if that's your bag, but when their minor children are involved, that's a whole other ball game.

Ditto. These scum need to be slapped with a stiff jail sentance.

*blink* Well, my first response is... how much money do these people have? And he's going to Wal*Mart? Seriously.


I'll submit $20 to the cause, which ups it to 80,020 people! :)

I used to work in a one hour photo a few years ago and after having to process everything from scantily clad teens to hardcore porn I can't help but to wonder what the hell makes people feel so comfortable dropping off anything that could be considered questionable for processing.

And with public breastfeeding being legally protected in most states and it generally becoming much more socially accepted, I can't believe so easily that there was a deep-seeded sexually exploitve element here. I just see idiocy on both sides of the counter.

Who wouldn't be tempted to double their yearly salary by selling two of those images?

Fire the employee and make their idiocy public but jail is just a bit too much.

The most idiotic part of this story occurred when the photos were taken to WalMart for processing. Anything after that should be considered legal and fair game.

Track down the creeps that swiped the photos, & give them some jail time, if for no other reason than to send a message that they crossed the line be it ethical or legal.

As for the idiot that took the photos to Wal-Mart...some people are total idiots.

I don't believe the photos are child pornography. Jamie Lynn is just another mother breastfeeding her newborn infant.
However, to take such photos when her gaurd was down, and then to make an attempt to sell them, well, the person responsible should be charged. Anyone who tries to make cash of a breastfeeding mother should be charged with an offence, in my opinion, no matter how old the mother happens to be.

I would like the next administration to develop a laser beam to eradicate this family and any others like it.

I would prefer painful rectal drip to discussing the Spears family.