The RCW & what is harmful to minors

It is entirely possible that the administration of some schools will not be overjoyed with this site.  I have no idea if someone will call police to have police check on it . . . but I suppose someone might worry about minor viewing a photo or two here or there.

The RCW 9.68 has sections dealing with “erotic material” which are shared with minors and which could be applied to X-rated or R-rated movies.  Of course, in actual practice, they are never or almost never applied to anyone.  People in the movie theatres don’t make it a practice to show R-rated movies to kids . . . and if they did, with a 14 or 15 year-old, not that many people would care a lot.  A lot of R-rated movies have social value.  Any kid who wants to do so should see Schindler’s List or Saving Private Ryan or the Passion of the Christ or Black Book.

The adult shops keep minors out to stay in business.  So it is hard to even think of or find a case, I think.

Many many years ago, there was a fellow in New York in a restaurant, bookstore or convenience store such as 7-eleven who sold a Playboy to a teen.  Not sure if that is a large concern these days.  I guess there is Barnes and Noble and they sell photos of occasional nudity or sex, but nearly everything in Barnes and Noble has social value of some type.

RCW is the revised code of Washington.

RCW 9.68.050(2) says “Erotic material” means printed material, photographs, pictures, motion pictures, sound recordings, and other material the dominant theme of which taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest of minors in sex; which is patently offensive because it affronts contemporary community standards relating to the description or representation of sexual matters or sado-masochistic abuse; and is utterly without redeeming social value;

Lets look at a photo which is on this site but does not relate greatly to the topic, other than, it is pretty and I saw it because one of the plugins at this site shows it today 03/02/2016.  Of course, though, it is an example of art and an opportunity for art appreciation, but not a favorite of school administrators, I suppose . . .

Beautiful sexy Santa Clause in elegant panties, hat and bra by Galina Tcivina on 500px.com

I think the photo is pretty and so will a lot of people.  The prettiness of the photo means that it has social value, as I understand the phrase.  Does this depict a sexual matter in an offensive way?  I don’t think so.  Even a photo that did depict a matter in way that some might find offensive seems to be protected by the statute if it has social value of some type.

Is a description or representation of a bikini competition a “sexual matter?”  Do those things have social value?

(The RCW also of course has a law against communication with a minor for an immoral purpose.  I could be wrong, but I think that the courts have taken that to mean communicating with a minor for an immoral purpose as such purposes are defined as illegal by state law.  If it is legal for a minor to go to or to spectate in or to participate in a bikini competition, then, a random person can’t claim that “talking about bikini competitions with minors” per se is an immoral purpose and therefore the crime of “communicating with a minor for an immoral purpose.”)

A random person might be wandering in the street and have the idea that bikini competitions are immoral or that minors viewing or participating in a bikini competition is doubly immoral.  The fact is that society in general does not regard bikini competitions–as they are generally done–as lewd or sexual exhibitions.  Persons who compete or spectate in them do not do so, generally speaking, for a purpose of self-sexual-stimulation as we normally understand it.

Of course, I am not a lawyer . . . Who knows what surprises someone will find in the code?

I see in the news of Saturday (March 05, 2016) that a man in some southern state has been charged with disseminating material harmful to minors as a result of some text conversations he had with 3 girls, that apparently included his sending them some nude and/or lewd photos.

Perhaps we’ll find out some hidden item in the law . . . but I somewhat hope and think that it does not, in Washington, include some tasteful near-nudes . . . in this context, especially!

It's only fair to share...Pin on PinterestShare on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on StumbleUponEmail this to someone