In this case, the girl’s mother found the pictures on her daughter’s email. The 5-2 decision rejected the challenge that the child pornography statute is unconstitutional, claiming that applying the law to someone old enough to legally consent to sex does nothing to protect them from exploitation or abuse. 234 (2002), the Court struck down a federal law that criminalizing sexually explicit images that appeared to depict minors but were in fact not real minors. They conclude: “There was nothing unlawful about the production of the photographs taken by defendant in this case because the sexual conduct between defendant and A. And, because the photographs taken by defendant are not child pornography for purposes of the first amendment, we cannot simply presume that rational basis review is appropriate in this case.” I think that dissent is correct about the concession and that briefing should have been ordered on the first amendment issue.In this case, the photos were not sold or distributed beyond the couple. The Court found the images protected under the First Amendment. Hollins is not exactly a sympathetic character and, as a parent, I would frankly share the mother’s sense of anger over the relationship and pictures.However, I would recommend you consult with your attorney before choosing any course of conduct.
However, it is not an offence if the person honestly believed you were 18 or older.
It is never okay for any person to have sex with another person who is under 16.
For 16 year olds, another person who is 16 can have sex with you if you both agree to it.
However, it is not an offence if the person honestly believed that you were 16 or if there was less than a two-year age difference between you. For example, if a person is 17 and has sex with someone who is 15, it is not a crime.
But if the person was 18, it is a crime unless the person believed the person was 16.