“A stolen picture of Jamie Lynn Spears breast-feeding her baby has sparked a federal child pornography investigation. Law enforcement sources tell TMZ federal and local authorities are on the hunt for someone peddling 12 pics of Britney Spears, Jamie Lynn, daughter Maddie and baby daddy Casey Aldridge. One of the pictures shows Jamie Lynn breast-feeding Maddie — Jamie Lynn’s left breast is exposed. The pics were taken on Casey’s digital camera. We’re told he took the camera card to his local Wal-Mart in Louisiana for copies. Law enforcement believes someone at the Wal-Mart may have made extra copies, then tried selling them. Because Jamie Lynn is a minor, selling the pics — or buying them — could constitute a violation of federal laws prohibiting child pornography. Peddling pictures of a minor’s breast — even if not taken for sexual purposes — could land the seller and the buyer in federal prison if they are marketed across state lines for the purpose of being lurid. Also, anyone purchasing the pics could be prosecuted for the crime of receiving stolen property.” — TMZ (US)

(Thanks to “Chris Finch” for the link.)

A number of sites have run this story (or non-story, as the case may be), and commenters seem to be particularly outraged at the suggestion that breastfeeding can be pornographic. Here’s one at random: “What kind of perverted weirdy beardy sexualises something so pure and innocent? No wonder breastfeeding rates are so abysmally low.” There are two answers to that. First, a lot of “weird beardy” perverts get off at the sight of breastfeeding and pregnant women. Have a look around the internet and you’ll see that it forms a very popular genre of pornography. Second, lots of people lust after feet, but that doesn’t automatically mean that a picture of a woman wearing open-toed sandals is pornographic. The “pornographicalness” of a picture doesn’t come just from what it represents but from the use to which it is put. In practical terms, a photograph only becomes pornography when a viewer experiences the physiological symtpoms of arousal.

In that sense, a photograph of a woman breast-feeding isn’t pornographic in itself. Ms. Spears’ mother could view the picture in a perfectly benign, un-erotic light. But the photograph could become pornographic when it is plastered all over web sites serving the celebrity porn and “nipple slip” market. This doesn’t necessarily mean that the photograph is pornographic. It only means that the photograph is potentially pornographic, and you can’t indict it for that. Any photographic has the potential.

Even more interesting, however, is the question of whether the photograph somehow constitutes child pornography. Ms. Spears is currently seventeen years old. She became pregnant at age 16. State laws typically enable a person to consent to sexual relations at that age, but federal law still defines the individual as a minor — hence the paradox that the father of Ms. Spears’ baby has never been arrested for statutory rape, but a picture of her breast might qualify as kiddie porn. That’s clearly absurd and suggests that the definition of child pornography ought to coincide with the age of consent. If it’s legal to fuck at age sixteen, it ought to be legal to bare a tit to a camera.

VideoBox

It's like the iTunes Music Store for Porn. Download unlimited high-quality video for only $9.95/month.