Free speech or perversion?

[no1_vern]

If a pedophile posts pictures of your under aged children on his website, do you have a right to force him to quit? In a recent news article apparently an attorney for Obama sent a "cease and desist" order to a pedophile who had pictures of the Candidates' children on his site.

Quote:

"Individuals can make comments about the candidates and the candidates' children without running afoul of the law until someone crosses the line into actual or criminal activity," said Lawrence G. Walters, a lawyer who has handled many cases involving pornography and the Internet. "For better or worse, pedophiles retain their free speech rights. If he's a professed pedophile and if he says, 'Let's try to find these kids,' then it could be in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy, then he may be liable."

Please note, we aren't talking about naked pictures nor pron, just pictures of under aged children that have already been run elsewhere along with some comments like

Quote:

"I have decided to make my predictions based upon what lovely First Daughter we can look forward to watching grow up for four to eight years."

[no1_vern]

The Real Bingo, Shipuuden, and I are the only ones willing to say something about this issue?

[The Real Bingo]

I can't resist taking place in a poll, but I can't really think that I "said" something about it. But if you insist...

Obama is overreacting, though. A guy posted a picture of his daughters that has apparently been distributed elsewhere. He said they're cute. Just because he's a pedophile, doesn't make that a crime.

I think Obama has bigger fish to fry - like making legislation on behalf of the state of Illinois and trying to win an upcoming presidential election.

[no1_vern]

Ok TRB, I was thinking about the fact that you voted giving us your opinion. I agree with you I think he is overreacting AND that he has more important things to do.

[M_Six]

My feeling is that the parent should have the final say on where and when any pictures of his/her children appear. If I want to give permission to no1_vern but deny TRB permission, that should be my right as a parent. That's probably unrealistic and unconstitutional, but there it is.

[OuTpaTienT]

If the photo is of a child (presuming under 18 years of age) then the permission of the parents should be required if you want to use that picture for publication (including "publishing" your own web site on the Internet). And I think that is the law... isn't it? However, there are exceptions it doesn't apply to celebrities, politicians, and generally anyone in the public limelight.

[M_Six]

While I think paparazzi are scum, I'm ok with celebs and pols being targeted for pics. I'm not so comfortable with their children being targets.

[shawshank62]

Quote:

My feeling is that the parent should have the final say on where and when any pictures of his/her children appear. If I want to give permission to no1_vern but deny TRB permission, that should be my right as a parent. That's probably unrealistic and unconstitutional, but there it is.