"Child Porn" Statement In My Defense

To whom it may concern, in regards to the Incident Report filed on 2/13/2015 by c/o Hill indicating that he found a picture that «appears to be child pornograph» in the cell that I, Joseph Duncan (12561-023, SCU Cell C-404), currently occupy.

After receiving notice of this incident report it took me some time to figure out what picture c/o Hill was concerned about. I do not keep child porn, or any porn, in my cell, and I knew I had no pictures that fit that description (which I indicated verbally to the lieutenant who served me the notice). But, after looking through my letters and other property I soon discovered that a page of printed pictures that I had not yet filed with my other letters as I usually do was missing. Since I knew that one of the images on this page was of a bare chested prepubescent girl, I assume this was the picture that «appeared» to be child pornography to c/o Hill. It was also the only picture I found missing.

I had not filed this page with the letter it came in because I drew one of the other pictures on the same page as a gift for a friend. The picture I drew is clearly indicated on the page by the grid marks I drew over it as a drawing aid.

According to Federal law, and B.O.P. Program Statements, none of the pictures on this page are pornographic, much less «child pornography». I have taken the time to prepare this statement which cites USCS 18 2256(8) for the definition of «child pornography» and various B.O.P. program statements which authorize me to have this picture (i.e. Program Statement inmate Correspondence).

Exhibit A (Program Statement) indicates that «sexually explicit» material is restricted when it is «contrary to law»; specifically, «child pornography which is prohibited by law». The key point here is that in order for a picture to be unauthorized as «child pornography» then it must be «prohibited by law»; not by how it «appears» to prison staff.

Exhibit B (USCS 18 2256) is the Federal legal definition (law) for «child pornography». The picture confescated from my cell is not «child pornography» by any interpretation of this definition. It is not «sexually explicit» at all (according to the definition of «sexually explicit» also @ USCS 18 2256). The child in the picture is bare chested, but has no «breasts» (as defined by Merriam-Webster; «the pair of mammary glands extending from the front of the chest in pubescent and adult human females») and is by commonly accepted standards not «exposed». She is not engaged in sexually explicit conduct, she is not depicted in a sexual situation or location, and the intent of the photograph is not to arouse or stimulate sexual desires.

Even if a person is sexually aroused by this picture, or pictures like it (which I am not), then that does not make it «child pornography», any more than a picture of a woman's shoe is «pornographic» because it arouses a man with a shoe fetish. It must meet the lawful definition of «child pornography» before it is «unauthorized» by B.O.P. policy, against child porn.

The child in the picture is in fact Thylane Blondeau, a famous child model who is photographed professionally. I received this picture of her in a letter that was opened and inspected by mailroom staff before being issued to me. I did not (and never do) solicit this picture or any pictures of children at all, which the letter (Exhibit C, redacted) indicates (see boxed section of Exhibit C). The person who sent me this letter is aware of B.O.P. policies concerning «obscene» material, and she would not have sent it if she had any concerns about it causing trouble.

When I received this picture in the mail I had no reason to think it was not authorized. Exhibit D also indicates that it is the responsibility of mailroom staff to ensure that inmates do no receive contraband. It was very reasonable for me to assume that this picture had been viewed and deemed «authorized» before it was given to me. The fact that it was found in «the open» in my cell (not hidden, and not with other pictures) supports this. I had no reason to hide it.

Exhibit E (pages 1-5) shows copies of other images that have been «authorized» by the mailroom. I do not collect images like this, and the only reason I have these compiled is in my defense. (It took me several hours to go through my property and find these images – I never had reason or the desire to bring them together before now.) These images also show «bare chested» (male and female) children, and even provocative pictures, but none of them are «unauthorized» or «child pornography».

The pictures I have been authorized to have in the past clearly establish a pattern of permitted pictures that the picture in question falls into easily. Again, I had no reason to think it was not authorized! even if it wasn't.

If a mistake was made in authorizing me to have this picture then it was not my mistake and I should not be held accountable for something I had no reason to suspect was awry. I had no way to know this image was «unauthorized» since it violates no laws, no B.O.P. policies, and I have received numerous images like it in the past (by pure coincidence, not intent). These images hold no special meaning for me, I don't «collect» them and never have.

P.S. Prior to this «Incident Report» I was fully aware of the Federal laws and B.O.P. policy regarding «child porn» because of my crimes. So I was well aware of the «boundaries» in such matters and hae always been careful not to cross them or even come close. This picture (in question) does not even come close, which is why I never questioned whether or not it was «authorized».