ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (10/16 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

We have emailed a link to the conference videos to all attendees and those who purchased the videos. If you haven’t received it and it is not in your spam folder, email

conference at all4consolaws dot org



NJ: How the new ‘child erotica’ law might help stop sex predators


A new law that further defines child pornography and more heavily prosecutes those who distribute and possess it went into effect recently, and law enforcers are hoping it’ll help keep offenders behind bars.

The legislation effectively closes a gap where possessors of “child erotica” — photos or videos of children who are being portrayed sexually or exploited — but aren’t necessarily nude, wasn’t considered child pornography.

They are now.

The law was signed by Gov. Chris Christie in July 2017 and went into effect Feb. 1. Officials say it’ll help keep more predators behind bars and could help stop some from carrying out hands-on offenses.

And there’s more to it beyond child erotica.

Read more


We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I guess they are going after all those parents of toddlers in tiaras exploiting their children in beauty pagents now. If the bill is passed it will likely ensnare more children and teens from selfie images than adults. Just posing with a group of friends on a beach in ones bathing suit could be risky and risqué.

I have always thought that they eventually want everyone in the system so they can demoralize and control the population. They better be careful- if everyone is on a registry ( or even multiple registries) then they won’t be able to divide and conquer as well.

Ha ha – Toddler beauty pageants was the first thing that popped into my head, along with anything else where some Puritan deems to much skin is showing. “Women’s” gymnastics, perhaps? Very few of the world class competitors are actually women, but young teenage girls, their bodies televised around the globe in skimpy leotards. Will they prosecute the broadcasters and photographers? What about junior gymnastics, diving, swimming, etc? Better leave those cameras at home, Mom and Dad, and teach your kids how to compete in a burkini.

Gee, now I think burkinis are really sexy! (Whoops, I think I just made them all illegal 😉 )

All of the family photos with memories from vacations on the waterfront beach, lakeside, in the backyard swimming pool, running through the sprinkler, etc are now in danger of being classified this way if posted or passed around to show family/friends and seen by someone with ulterior motives, e.g. a pissed family member, former friend, past colleague, or “frenemy”. It will only take one photo, one LEO “following the law” and one DA/prosecutor who wants to make a name for themselves to ruin a family forever with the related experience.

Honestly, I believe the plan is to have every single citizen on a registry for something. We are just the “beta” phase of it. I’m all for putting more people on it. That way, when the general population starts to finally realize how screwed up this whole thing is, then the money to fight it will come up, and we will finally get our defenses and ruling about these registries being punitive and unconstituional

This is another example of a fine LOSER Chris Christie… making shirtless pics of my kid a crime ! SCREW YOU Chris Christie, you need to be booted out of office loser. Just cause someone has a shirtless pic of a kid it isnt child porn ! What about all the pics that are taken of kids at the waterpark ? going to prosecute all of them parents ? omg hurry close down the waterparks in NJ, then again NJ… a blightfull area as heard on tv… and look who lives there…Chris Christie

PSST – his term was over Jan 16, 2018. Terms limits at two terms.

BTW, if those water park images are considered child erotica, then advertisers are pushers and distributors of such, the photographers are the manufacturers of such, and those who see these images are purveyors of such, intentionally or not (much like an unwanted email or text message). Can you imagine the backlog at the prosecutor’s office? Oh wait, Christie was prosecutor. Job security then for his brethren. Also, suits AG Sessions obsession to fill prisons with people so the empty beds are not so lonely and empty.

Im thinking about the movie “Taxi Driver”

Three thoughts: 1. How are they going to determine what each person, individually, finds erotic? 2. What about the opposite – adult women dressed in skimpy school girl attire – will that be illegal? Wouldn’t that also entice of your to look for actual photos of school girls? 3. Will we soon have “government-certified pornography” and all other pornography will be uncertified and illegal?
So now we have “Neo-Pures” – the new Puritans – similar to Neo-Cons?

@List everyone!! “1. How are they going to determine what each person, individually, finds erotic?”

Simple. As in the Maplethorpe obscenity case, they’ll “know it when they see it”. In other words, if the cop or the DA look at a picture of a semi-clad kid that they find in a suspect’s possession, and it turns them on, then obviously it is “child erotica”.

1. This is in conflict with federal law. Child erotica is not illegal. That said, it can be used to support an argument that someone has an interest in the sexualization of those under eighteen. How successfully this is argued will vary from case to case.

2. Child pornography need not depict anyone under eighteen partly or fully naked. Someone fully clothed in the right environment or acting inappropriately for their apparent age can easily be declared as a child pornography victim. For example a teenage girl laying on her bed fully clothed in a suggestive pose could be cp even if she took the picture herself. Maybe a teenage boy who took a selfie wearing only a towel pointing with one hand towards his crotch in the bathroom might also be cp. Of course the best example I’ve heard to date was a completely non sexual photo of a girl who was identified as a victim of child pornography in the database maintained by the national center for missing and exploited children. In that particular case the government argued someone was in possession of child pornography because the images they had (despite not being sexual at all) were themselves child pornography because later images in the same set (which this defendant didn’t have or know about) had been classified as cp.

Do you have any more information about that case? It would be really interesting to know if the NCMEC database includes the non-sexual images as well, and that’s how the person was caught.

So I guess the feds are going to shut down Madison Avenue, Hollywood, and the music industry. I’m thinking Britney spears, Miley Cirus, Kendal Jenner, and so many more all under 18, all highly suggestive. Recall the early Jordace commercials with Brooke Shields? Prison time for all!!! This should be interesting with all the lawsuits and appeals. But the sad thing is, the justice system doesn’t care of all the collateral damage, it keeps lawyers and judges in work and prisons full. That is what matters.

I think it is very clear that the fear of prosecution or public castigation has already had a profound effect on the film, television, advertising and art communities. That ship has already sailed. Those of us whose memories extend back more than fifty years can attest to the dramatic shifts in those media in their treatment of child subjects. In fact, most prefer not to depict actual children at all, such is the generalized anxiety surrounding child subjects. You may have noticed that cartoons now make up the vast majority of children’s television and film fare. Live child actors are becoming increasingly rare. This is no coincidence. Interacting with child actors is now fraught with peril. Just ask those in the film industry. We marked a real turning point when children’s faces began to be blurred-out in most tv news coverage. Again, this is not a coincidence. The harsh threats posed by laws imprecisely drawn would lead any reasonable person to conclude that they can no longer be sure that the painting, photo, film or video which they might contemplate and in which kids are their subjects will be assuredly legal. This paranoid cultural movement is historically unprecedented and its ramifications completely and indifferently unexamined.

I think that we can assume that this will be one of the most selectively enforced laws in existence. This is legislation whose prosecutorial appeal is to convict those they feel sure possess unacceptable “thoughts” and who they would otherwise be unable to ensnare and throw into a cage. This is the quintessence of “thought crime.”

Wow, I had always heard that even child nudity wasn’t CP unless they were engaged in some kind of sexual pose or act.
With this law, any law enforcement person could look at ANY photo of a child and say “She (or he) looks sexy.” And possession would automatically become illegal.

The “naturist” photos of kids who were inadvertently nude seem to have become illegal in the last decade or so, at least as a practical matter; post 9/11. Part of this is that those accused accept plea deals and their alleged possession or creation of nude photos or videos of kids simply doesn’t make it to jury trial. The other reason, of course, is that the laws defining child pornography have become correspondingly expansive and vague and rely substantially upon the ostensible minds of those making or viewing it. The Azov Films cases a few years ago was, for many, a real eye-opener since they were said to be purely nude depictions of minors frolicking around outside. Nevertheless, this was a major, multinational law enforcement shit-storm that resulted in many people going to prison. The company, unknown to many who would be its customers, was taken over and run by U.S. and Canadian law enforcement for the purpose of selling “child pornography” as they had decided to define it and would arrest those who purchased it over the next several years in a number of different countries, the U.S. included. So, was it “child pornography?” Well, I guess our government knows it when it sees it (with the help of the NGOs who make it their business to impose their morality upon us) and need not answer to anyone else. It is through that means that we eventually find out what is legal and what is not, i.e. by breaking the law. No surprise then that this would have such a chilling effect that no one wants to go anywhere near depictions of kids of any kind.

“Officials say it’ll help keep more predators behind bars and could help stop some from carrying out hands-on offenses.” Well, since that is complete and utter Bullsh*t, because actual science has never found such correlation, they should stop lying through their asses and call this what it is: “More ways to keep Jails and Prisons full”. Disgusting morons. People like this should be locked up, lying through their teeth to US citizens, giving them a sense of false security, making the prosecutors look good with easy-breezy convictions. How about they help solve REAL CRIME, SINCE OVER 50% OF ALL CRIMES ARE NEVER RESOLVED.

Yeah why don’t they test al those backlogged rape kits? Maybe they are afraid the info might point to law enforcement personel, bureaucrats, politicians or their friends as the perpetrators.

I was caught up in “non-nude” underage child erotica 12 years ago. My case was unique and in the grey area of the law. The material was non-nude but because the way they were posed and the outfits they wore were considered sexual in nature, I was convicted. (See Dost Factors) I was sentenced to 5 years time, 5 years probation.

All that is behind me now, but my question about this new law is this: Do underage photos that DO NOT contain sexually explicit conduct are now considered illegal? In other words, let’s say you started a website that featured photos of minors dressed in everyday clothing and posing. Then you marketed that website towards people that enjoy looking at minors. Would these photos now become illegal? If this is true, any photo of a minor can become illegal…but how a court prove these photos are for sexual gratification?

By the way, this comment is not true because I’m proof of being convicted of this back in 2006. They did call it child pornography.

“photos or videos of children who are being portrayed sexually or exploited — but aren’t necessarily nude, wasn’t considered child pornography.”

How can this country continually think of new ways to mark its citizens as defective and throw them away?. Soon we’ll have a quarter of the population in prison or unable to be employed because of a past transgression. This will drag down the holier than thou others who managed to escape the traps, often just by grace of position, not necessarily virtue. Many of those will be older baby boomers who can’t support themselves either. As we ratchet up the prison population, all the other measures of a civilized country are declining, except the income of the upper 1 percent. You care about children, invest in ways to keep us from being near the bottom in infant mortality, poverty and education compared to other developed countries.

The perfect crime… for the government: “Trust us. It was naughty.”

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x