Administrative & Professional
Tucson Urban League
CEO/President Trades/Construction
RANCHO RESORT
MAINTANANCE POSITION Administrative & Professional
Jorgensen Brooks Group
Counselor Mechanical
Komatsu Equipment Co
Resident Field Mechanic Finance and Accounting
Charles E. Gillman Company
Accounting Specialist Sales and Marketing
Everready Glass
Sales Reps

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — An Orange County, Calif., mother was shocked last fall to discover that someone had photographed her 13-year-old son in his tight-fitting swimsuit at a high school water polo meet and posted the image on an adult Web site that invited lewd comments.

Scouring the Internet, parents soon found other such photos, hundreds of them. But their horror turned to disbelief upon learning that police could do little to stop the practice.

The Orange County parents banded together to raise a ruckus that has launched a law enforcement review, prompted legislation to crack down on the practice and prodded debate pitting constitutional rights against children's privacy.

"It's disgusting because they're victimizing kids," said Joan Gould, a spokeswoman for the group, including the mother whose discovery sparked the outcry. "It's demoralizing to young kids."

California's penal code does not specifically ban such photography, which is protected by free-speech rights, because the photos themselves are not lewd and are taken at school athletic events open to the public.

The uproar is part of a much broader issue, the marriage of Internet and digital camera technology that allows photographs to be transmitted worldwide at the push of a button.

"There are certain areas where the law has not kept up with technology," said Lena Smyth, co-founder of Mothers Against Sexual Predators,.

Margaret Johns, a law professor at the University of California-Davis, said people who post such pictures on adult Web sites could be sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress or, possibly, violating privacy for monetary gain.

But winning such a civil case would be no slam-dunk, according to Johns, who said that a distress-based suit would have to show conduct that was extreme, highly offensive and caused severe emotional distress.