NationStates Jolt Archive

I think this one has done the rounds before, but it still is a great example of pure insanity, and why laws regarding age of consent and child pornography have little if anything to do with protecting the victims of underage sexual abuse.

Girl charged with posting nude photos on Internet
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/search/s_186625.html


By The Tribune-Review
Saturday, March 27, 2004

A 15-year-old Latrobe girl has been arrested for allegedly taking sexually explicit photos of herself and posting them on the Internet. State police at Greensburg said the girl took photos of herself in various states of undress and performed a variety of sexual acts. She then sent them to people she met in chat rooms on the Internet.

The computer was seized by police, who conducted a forensic investigation and found dozens of photographs of the juvenile stored on the hard drive. The investigation is continuing as state police try to identify all the people who received photos from the girl.

Police said the girl was charged with possession and dissemination of child pornography. A hearing date has not been set.

Thats just messed up..

What is up with these people. You cant do anything without some popup ot something come up that has some kind of nudity.

that's actually a tough one...

I do feel that this is an example of why zero tolerance laws/rules are a bad thing per se. Each case/example should be judged on the circumstances of the case, rather than a blanket rule.

In this case, it seems to be a sort of catch-22 for the state tho. If the girl was too young to consent (in a legal sense) to having the pictures taken, then it should follow that she is too young to be legally responsible for her actions...
On the other hand, if she is old enough to be held legally responsible for commiting the "crime" then she is old enough to consent.

What is up with these people. You cant do anything without some popup up or something come up that has some kind of nudity.

Wow!

It sounds like a law the never considered that a minor would do that.

Usually, its some adult.......

I kind of doubt they will do much to her. I think they are more interested in the customers......

Wow!

It sounds like a law the never considered that a minor would do that.

Usually, its some adult.......

I kind of doubt they will do much to her. I think they are more interested in the customers......
customers...hahah

Thats just messed up..
That she was prosecuted, or that she did it in the first place?

She got charged with possession of child pornography? That's a bit warped.

She got charged with possession of child pornography? That's a bit warped.
Just a bit.

Could she also be charged for performing sexual acts on a minor if she masturbated herself?

Think how that looks on your record though, a conviction for possessing child porn. It wouldn't mention the fact that it was pictures of herself, and I doubt any employeer would care enough to check that out.

She got charged with possession of child pornography? That's a bit warped.

Well.... she was in possession of child pornography. Cant really get around that. I imagine the DA (if they do file charges) will offer to allow her to plea down to misdemeanor commission of a lewd act.

My personal views are that she isnt old enough to be held responsible for her actions.

wait - possessing naked pictures of yourself is a crime if you are under 18? that's just fucked up. i doubt a jury would really find against her, even without knowing about jury nullification - i would assume it was either settled or dropped eventually. anyone know?

Well.... she was in possession of child pornography. Cant really get around that. I imagine the DA (if they do file charges) will offer to allow her to plea down to misdemeanor commission of a lewd act.

My personal views are that she isnt old enough to be held responsible for her actions.The spirit of the law is clearly to protect children who are victims of sexual abuse, no? So why, oh why, is this law being used to punish a child in a crime with no victim???

Just a bit.

Could she also be charged for performing sexual acts on a minor if she masturbated herself?

Think how that looks on your record though, a conviction for possessing child porn. It wouldn't mention the fact that it was pictures of herself, and I doubt any employeer would care enough to check that out.

Yeah, exactly. That's probably screwed up her life.

Though, I'm not sure about US law, do minors actually recieve a permanent criminal record?

Well nomater how you aplile it she cant be charged because if you say shes too young to be doing that that then she too young to be charded. and if you say shes old enufe then she can expose her self

wait - possessing naked pictures of yourself is a crime if you are under 18? that's just fucked up. i doubt a jury would really find against her, even without knowing about jury nullification - i would assume it was either settled or dropped eventually. anyone know?Oh no no, its not just possession. You can do nothing more than look at them and you'll go to jail. Thats pretty fucked up even when its not pictures of yourself, but when it is it becomes like you've stepped into an LSD-induced fantasy

Well nomater how you aplile it she cant be charged because if you say shes too young to be doing that that then she too young to be charded. and if you say shes old enufe then she can expose her self
Except that the age of criminal responsibilty is 10, but the age of sexual responsibility is as high as 18

Except that the age of criminal responsibilty is 10, but the age of sexual responsibility is as high as 18


All I like to look at it form a logical persptive not by law

Depending on the severity of the crime, yes. That's why there are also times when minors are charged as adults.

Oh no no, its not just possession. You can do nothing more than look at them and you'll go to jail. Thats pretty fucked up even when its not pictures of yourself, but when it is it becomes like you've stepped into an LSD-induced fantasy


So wait...if a teen looks at himself (or god forbid, a sexual partner), he commits a crime. Anyone else find this just a tad bit f*cked up?

The computer was seized by police, who conducted a forensic investigation

I bet they did.

Yeah, exactly. That's probably screwed up her life.

Though, I'm not sure about US law, do minors actually recieve a permanent criminal record?
Not unless the court aggrees to try them as an adult(as has been done in some rare cases)

The spirit of the law is clearly to protect children who are victims of sexual abuse, no? So why, oh why, is this law being used to punish a child in a crime with no victim???

I cant really say that there is no victim. Perhaps not the girl in question, but... follow me here with this one... her customers use her pictures to further their own fantasies. Maybe just one of those people goes on to look for pictures of younger and younger girls. Until he finds some guy willing to take pictures of his 5 year old daughter for money. There's your victim.

sigh...

I cant really say that there is no victim. Perhaps not the girl in question, but... follow me here with this one... her customers use her pictures to further their own fantasies. Maybe just one of those people goes on to look for pictures of younger and younger girls. Until he finds some guy willing to take pictures of his 5 year old daughter for money. There's your victim.
but that's not the 15 yr old's fault
charge the moron dad

I cant really say that there is no victim. Perhaps not the girl in question, but... follow me here with this one... her customers use her pictures to further their own fantasies. Maybe just one of those people goes on to look for pictures of younger and younger girls. Until he finds some guy willing to take pictures of his 5 year old daughter for money. There's your victim.


by that logic can you arest a gun maker for some one shooting some one with a gun he made?

Hang on. We're now prosecuting people based on the actions they do to -themselves-?

Granted, the state can't assume she knows better. Baseline-sense tells me either probation (they have to appear tough or they won't get re-elected, stupid American politician-judicators) or the kind of outcry that changes the course of history.

<EDIT>Yeah yeah, I know, drug laws, etc, but someone taking lewd pictures of themselves doesn't really stand a threat of causing damage to other people themselves, and anyone who did based on her actions (child fetishists in this case) should have known better by the age of majority anyway.</EDIT>

by that logic can you arest a gun maker for some one shooting some one with a gun he made?

Seriously. Or (s)he could charge me for manslaughter because I posted that this is a ridiculous thought process that was infinitely regressive and relativistic and some crazy bastard decided to kill me cause he hates relativism and got confused about who was justifying what exactly.

That would be lousy.

You shouldn't charge a 15 yearold who takes pictures of herself in an attempt to stop her from unintentionally encouraging old men to take pictures of other younger girls. That's absurd. I can't believe somebody would suggest that. Maybe we should make 15 year olds dress in full nun-attire so as to not encourage the sexualization of young women. And let it be known that there is a world of difference between 15 and 5.

What if an author writes a story about a Lolita... and this story encourages the fantasy of a reader. Does the author get charged?

What if a speeding sign which is bound to be disobeyed normalizes crime in somebody's severly deranged mind and they then go on a cross-country robbing spree figuring they've already broken one law, why not break another?

What if an idiot used this kind of reasoning to justify a law and then somebody else used the same kind of reasoning to decide that politician was to blame for all the world's problems?

but that's not the 15 yr old's fault
charge the moron dad

no, I woulndt charge the dad, unless it's with 50,000 volts. I whole heartedly believe that using their own children like that is deserving the worst punishment that a country has.

hmm...

"The trial of the 'digital masochist' was recessed again when the judge excused himself to do some more research"

:shutting up:

... follow me here with this one....I cant...and I wont.

no, I woulndt charge the dad, unless it's with 50,000 volts. I whole heartedly believe that using their own children like that is deserving the worst punishment that a country has.
well see...he has to be charged with a crime AND found guilty before he's sentenced to death
at least in the USA
(not to mention- although I agree with you about the worst possible sentencing- I don't believe in the death penalty ever)

Ok, trying to not use illogical extremes here.

No, I dont believe that the reasoning I used should be justification for charging the teen. Infact I stated I believe she shouldnt be charged with anything. Perhaps I just cant explain it, but I dont believe that there is any such thing as a victimless crime. Perhaps misguided tho it is.. even attempted suicide is illegal.

Yeah, exactly. That's probably screwed up her life.

Though, I'm not sure about US law, do minors actually recieve a permanent criminal record?

No, the records are either sealed or destroyed (I'm thinking sealed) after they turn 18. However, if she's tried as an adult, they will stay on her record. She will be branded a sex offender.

Ok, trying to not use illogical extremes here.

No, I dont believe that the reasoning I used should be justification for charging the teen. Infact I stated I believe she shouldnt be charged with anything. Perhaps I just cant explain it, but I dont believe that there is any such thing as a victimless crime. Perhaps misguided tho it is.. even attempted suicide is illegal.


Well then If I smash my TV in its not a crime becuse its mine right?

So then by your logic our body's are propetry of someone eles?

So if I take a picture of me naked I can be charged with child pornography? What if I look at myself when I'm naked? Or if someone else see's me naked?

You know...

The more and more that I see stupinity each day, the more and more I start to question MY own sanity....

I believe that the girl's case should be dismissed. I believe that it was totally her choice to post the pictures online, noone else's. Branding her as a sex offender is not only moronic, but it's a waste of time, not to mention $money$. I believe that teens, no matter how young, all deserve a right to express themselves however they please, and if they get hurt in the process....well then, it's a lesson learned, ain't it? Remember, we were all (and maybe still are) teens at one time or another. Do you remember how much freedom you wanted? Freedom to express yourselves? Freedom to say and do what you want? If adults get all kinds of freedom, then why do we deny it to teens? It just doesn't make sence.

The case should be thrown out, and the investigators who handled this case (and the girl's computer) should be slapped and beaten unmercifully with a giant spiked metal bat for wasting our hard earned money and time on a pathetically stupid trial.

-Commander General Vlad Pryde
~=*****=~

wait - possessing naked pictures of yourself is a crime if you are under 18? that's just fucked up. i doubt a jury would really find against her, even without knowing about jury nullification - i would assume it was either settled or dropped eventually. anyone know?
It's not so much she's naked as she is being sexually explicit.

Or if someone else see's me naked?
If I see you naked...im going to Jail :D

So wait...if a teen looks at himself (or god forbid, a sexual partner), he commits a crime. Anyone else find this just a tad bit f*cked up?
Nah, now generaly they let you off for looking in RL, its only any kind of photograph or video media that they book you for.

I cant really say that there is no victim. Perhaps not the girl in question, but... follow me here with this one... her customers use her pictures to further their own fantasies. Maybe just one of those people goes on to look for pictures of younger and younger girls. Until he finds some guy willing to take pictures of his 5 year old daughter for money. There's your victim.
That's bull, she's not responsible for that guy's actions. That's just butterfly effect.

And tens of thousands of desperately horny, painfully lonely chat room nerds showed up to protest what looked like a possible government crack-down on camwhores, fearing that the government's final stage of devolution will take away the one thing that they love most: boobs.

It's not so much she's naked as she is being sexually explicit.
Its not that even, its just the most insane use of a law designed to protect kids. Personally I think that some serious re-legislating needs to be done regarding ages of consent and child pornography, especially when it comes to the internet.

Its not that even, its just the most insane use of a law designed to protect kids. Personally I think that some serious re-legislating needs to be done regarding ages of consent and child pornography, especially when it comes to the internet.

It's obvious you feel that there is nothing wrong with a child engaging in sexual activities. I think you're wrong. Let's agree to disagree.

that's actually a tough one...

I do feel that this is an example of why zero tolerance laws/rules are a bad thing per se. Each case/example should be judged on the circumstances of the case, rather than a blanket rule.

In this case, it seems to be a sort of catch-22 for the state tho. If the girl was too young to consent (in a legal sense) to having the pictures taken, then it should follow that she is too young to be legally responsible for her actions...
On the other hand, if she is old enough to be held legally responsible for commiting the "crime" then she is old enough to consent.

And also, it seems weird because if she took the pictures of herself, it should be less serious since she wasn't victimizing anyone else. And if someone else took the pictures, aren't they the ones responsible then?

So if I take a picture of me naked I can be charged with child pornography? What if I look at myself when I'm naked? Or if someone else see's me naked?
stop looking at yourself naked, you are viewing child pornography and can be convicted to at least 10 years in jail

And tens of thousands of desperately horny, painfully lonely chat room nerds showed up to protest what looked like a possible government crack-down on camwhores, fearing that the government's final stage of devolution will take away the one thing that they love most: boobs.
Turn up? Somewhere in RL? I highly doubt this.

It's obvious you feel that there is nothing wrong with a child engaging in sexual activities. I think you're wrong. Let's agree to disagree.
Have you posted before on this thread even?

As to "children" engaging in sexual activities, I don't know where you got the idea from that sex is a journey you begin on your 18th birthday and not a second before, but I personally believe biology textbooks that will tell you people can be sexually (and yes, even emotionally) mature at age 15, and that the law has no place in the bedroom between people who give their consent.

In this case, it seems to be a sort of catch-22 for the state tho. If the girl was too young to consent (in a legal sense) to having the pictures taken, then it should follow that she is too young to be legally responsible for her actions...
On the other hand, if she is old enough to be held legally responsible for commiting the "crime" then she is old enough to consent.
Yeah, doesn't it follow that if she can't consent, if she is not of sound enough judgement to show people photos of herself, then she shouldn't be judge to have sound enough judgement to knowingly comit a crime? Isn't there some merit to that arguement as well?

I'm for it. She was sending her illegal pictures to men on the internet, men who would have been sent to prison if they had been caught. She was enabling hebaphelia and the violation of the Internet Decency law. Not to mention how many of them were just lonely guys looking for a woman and now have developed a fetish for young teens? She broke the law and she knew it, and she should get the same punishment they would get. But she won't because it's a juvenile offence, so she won't be walking the yard of a maximum security prison with "pedaphile" tattooed to her forhead.

What if an author writes a story about a Lolita... and this story encourages the fantasy of a reader. Does the author get charged?

Just to clarify--yes. I read a story in the newspaper a few years ago that said that a guy was charged with possession of child pornography for a short story he had written about two 10 year olds and an 11 year old who were imprisoned and raped continuously. Pornography covers literature, too.

The law is disgusting. Like lots of you have said: if she's old enough to be charged, she's old enough to consent to take the pictures of herself. It cancels out--or at least it would in a world that made sense.

I'm for it. She was sending her illegal pictures to men on the internet, men who would have been sent to prison if they had been caught. She was enabling hebaphelia and the violation of the Internet Decency law. Not to mention how many of them were just lonely guys looking for a woman and now have developed a fetish for young teens? She broke the law and she knew it, and she should get the same punishment they would get. But she won't because it's a juvenile offence, so she won't be walking the yard of a maximum security prison with "pedaphile" tattooed to her forhead.


What a load of Crock. I say she did nothing wrong, and that if it was her choice, then so be it. It should be her choice, NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S OR COURT'S. As far as punishment, the only punishment that should be recieved are the investigators who handled this case. They should be punished and beaten with a giant metal spiked bat for the stupinity and voilation of this girl's privacy. They had absolutely NO BUSINESS taking her computer or arresting her. To me, it's all about freedom of speech and freedom to do what she wants. Adults do it constantly in this country (USA), so why not let teens? If the courts had any scence, they would shuck this from thier desks and repremand the morons who brought this before them for wasting thier time and taxpayer's money with such stupinity. Because in the end, that's all this is: stupinity on behalf of the investigators and persons prosecuting this case.

What a load of Crock. I say she did nothing wrong, and that if it was her choice, then so be it. It should be her choice, NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S OR COURT'S. As far as punishment, the only punishment that should be recieved are the investigators who handled this case. They should be punished and beaten with a giant metal spiked bat for the stupinity and voilation of this girl's privacy. They had absolutely NO BUSINESS taking her computer or arresting her. To me, it's all about freedom of speech and freedom to do what she wants. Adults do it constantly in this country (USA), so why not let teens? If the courts had any scence, they would shuck this from thier desks and repremand the morons who brought this before them for wasting thier time and taxpayer's money with such stupinity. Because in the end, that's all this is: stupinity on behalf of the investigators and persons prosecuting this case.

Do you think we should get rid of all "kiddy porn" laws? Or change the age of consent to... what... 13? Do you think that guys who trade underaged porn pictures on the internet should have an absolute 100% ironclad right to prevent police and F.B.I. investigators from viewing the contents of their hard drives?

If you disagree with the law, change the law. Nudie pics of underaged persons are illegal, and transmitting them on the internet is a federal crime. She commited that crime. As another poster mentioned someone that she sent her pictures too could now be struggling with a temptation he never knew before, and it is not her dumbass father's fault for trusting her with a computer and a camera and not being aware of what goes on these days.

It's a law, she broke it. Don't like the law? Change it.

I'm for it. She was sending her illegal pictures to men on the internet, men who would have been sent to prison if they had been caught. She was enabling hebaphelia and the violation of the Internet Decency law. Not to mention how many of them were just lonely guys looking for a woman and now have developed a fetish for young teens? She broke the law and she knew it, and she should get the same punishment they would get. But she won't because it's a juvenile offence, so she won't be walking the yard of a maximum security prison with "pedaphile" tattooed to her forhead.
The internet decency law? I've never heard of that, I'm compelled to wonder if you just made it up, but if it does exist... I'm likely to be in violation of that.

Oops


BTW, if your concern isn't for the children who get hurt (and it clearly isn't), then what precisely is your problem with peadophillia?

Do you think we should get rid of all "kiddy porn" laws? Or change the age of consent to... what... 13? Do you think that guys who trade underaged porn pictures on the internet should have an absolute 100% ironclad right to prevent police and F.B.I. investigators from viewing the contents of their hard drives?

If you disagree with the law, change the law. Nudie pics of underaged persons are illegal, and transmitting them on the internet is a federal crime. She commited that crime. As another poster mentioned someone that she sent her pictures too could now be struggling with a temptation he never knew before, and it is not her dumbass father's fault for trusting her with a computer and a camera and not being aware of what goes on these days.

It's a law, she broke it. Don't like the law? Change it.
:roll: Honestly. Whats the point of the law? To protect the children. How is this aim served by prosecuting her? It isn't. Simple as that.

The internet decency law? I've never heard of that, I'm compelled to wonder if you just made it up, but if it does exist... I'm likely to be in violation of that.

Oops


BTW, if your concern isn't for the children who get hurt (and it clearly isn't), then what precisely is your problem with peadophillia?

Not sure ...no I am... that's not the proper title. "Communications Decency Act" is what I meant.... sorry.

How do you conclude that the victims of pedaphelia are not my concern?

:roll: Honestly. Whats the point of the law? To protect the children. How is this aim served by prosecuting her? It isn't. Simple as that.

Same with drugs laws vis a vis drug users. Don't like it? Change that one too.

Not sure ...no I am... that's not the proper title. "Communications Decency Act" is what I meant.... sorry.

How do you conclude that the victims of pedaphelia are not my concern?
The fact that you want to prosecute the "victim" as the criminal tipped me off.

Same with drugs laws vis a vis drug users. Don't like it? Change that one too.
And in the meantime: obey stupid laws.

The fact that you want to prosecute the "victim" as the criminal tipped me off.

What? Tipped you off that I'd remembered the title wrong? :rolleyes:

She's not the victim. The crime she commited was sending nude photographs of an underaged person across a wire service. She did that, and that makes her a criminal.

Have I once said that I do not believe the law should be changed? No, I do not believe that I have. If you believe that it should, complain about the lack of minor exclusion from the terms of the Communications Decency Act in its wording. A 15 year old girl could flash her tits to her picture phone and send it to her 14 year old boyfriend, and both could easily be convicted under this Act.

Oh boy, oh boy...
What about her parents? Maybe they have pics of her naked as a baby from a day at the beach or something? Does that coount as child pornography as well? Or are those artistic pics?

And in the meantime: obey stupid laws.

No. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

What? Tipped you off that I'd remembered the title wrong? :rolleyes:

She's not the victim. The crime she commited was sending nude photographs of an underaged person across a wire service. She did that, and that makes her a criminal.

Have I once said that I do not believe the law should be changed? No, I do not believe that I have. If you believe that it should, complain about the lack of minor exclusion from the terms of the Communications Decency Act in its wording. A 15 year old girl could flash her tits to her picture phone and send it to her 14 year old boyfriend, and both could easily be convicted under this Act.
You're talking about the letter of the law, I'm talking about the spirit. My point is that the cricumstances in which she managed to break the law clearly prove that the law is stupid. If you agree with me then I don't know why you're arguing.

Oh boy, oh boy...
What about her parents? Maybe they have pics of her naked as a baby from a day at the beach or something? Does that coount as child pornography as well? Or are those artistic pics?
Now that is a whole other kettle of fish. Laws about child porn almost inevitably include an exception for art. So the laws then become about defining art as well, something which it is definately not within the governments remit to do.

Now that is a whole other kettle of fish. Laws about child porn almost inevitably include an exception for art. So the laws then become about defining art as well, something which it is definately not within the governments remit to do.
The art comment wasn't the point. it was meant as ..

No. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.
Just because you can rhyme somthing doesn't mean you're right.

The art comment wasn't the point. it was meant as ..It was a good point

Thank you.

Oh boy, oh boy...
What about her parents? Maybe they have pics of her naked as a baby from a day at the beach or something? Does that coount as child pornography as well? Or are those artistic pics?

In the 80s, before the C.D.A., there was a case that was covered by (the great) Charley Rhodes about a photographer that was busted for taking artistic nudes of a young girl with her mother's cooperation. It really amounts to what a judge will eventually say, but I have never seen any other such case, nor any case of "baby-nude-on-bearskin-rug" shots being prosecuted.

There were a few hundred photos of her confiscated, some of them nudes, and I never saw it covered anywhere else or heard about its resolution. Basically it was presented as a case of a police agency crippling a small business by dragging out the investigation, but of course they could not show any of the puctures and the F.B.I. declined to send anyone to speak for their side, so we do not know whether they were art or if they crossed some statutory or prescedential line into obscenity, lewdness, appeal to prurient interests, or whatever chicken-shit euphamisms the dirty old men who first wrote the applicable laws put into them.

Just because you can rhyme somthing doesn't mean you're right.
Nope. The only thing it means is that I can rhyme. So?

You're talking about the letter of the law, I'm talking about the spirit. My point is that the cricumstances in which she managed to break the law clearly prove that the law is stupid. If you agree with me then I don't know why you're arguing.

The law like most laws is stupid and in need of ammendment. However, she distributed nudie pictures of an underaged person over a wire service. That is illegal and I believe that it SHOULD be illegal. It should ALWAYS be illegal (barring art). Talk about a lighter sentence, I will agree with, but not that what she did was not or should not have been a crime.

It's also not a crime for a fifteen year old to have sex with a nineteen year old, but it is a crime for that nineteen year old to have sex with a fifteen year old.

Now I am 40 and seperated and I do not have a gf. If a truly hot and well developed fifteen year old girl tried to seduce me, she would probably succeed. I would then be a criminal, guilty of statutory rape (under 16+ here). What about her?

As far as I'm concerned, she would be accesory before the fact and also fommenting criminal activity.

Think on this for a minute:

Sure, it was her choice to post the pictures, BUT....

....it was also those people's choices to view the photos. So, this goes right back to what I have been trying to explain:
It is all about personal choice. It is YOUR choice to view the photos. Noone told you or forced you to view them. They were simply placed there. Whether or not you choose to down load the pictures and beat off while looking at them....well, that is your choice, and therefore, YOU should be held accountable....not the person who posted them.

Think on this for a minute:

Sure, it was her choice to post the pictures, BUT....

....it was also those people's choices to view the photos. So, this goes right back to what I have been trying to explain:
It is all about personal choice. It is YOUR choice to view the photos. Noone told you or forced you to view them. They were simply placed there. Whether or not you choose to down load the pictures and beat off while looking at them....well, that is your choice, and therefore, YOU should be held accountable....not the person who posted them.

So if an adult had placed them there, with her "consent", that should be legal too?

The law like most laws is stupid and in need of ammendment. However, she distributed nudie pictures of an underaged person over a wire service. That is illegal and I believe that it SHOULD be illegal. It should ALWAYS be illegal (barring art). Talk about a lighter sentence, I will agree with, but not that what she did was not or should not have been a crime.

It's also not a crime for a fifteen year old to have sex with a nineteen year old, but it is a crime for that nineteen year old to have sex with a fifteen year old.

Now I am 40 and seperated and I do not have a gf. If a truly hot and well developed fifteen year old girl tried to seduce me, she would probably succeed. I would then be a criminal, guilty of statutory rape (under 16+ here). What about her?

As far as I'm concerned, she would be accesory before the fact and also fommenting criminal activity.
If a 15 year old tries to seduce you, in RL, you are supposed to posses the maturity to say no. But thats something different then a 15 year old taking naked pics of herself beeing charged with child pornography.

If a 15 year old tries to seduce you, in RL, you are supposed to posses the maturity to say no. But thats something different then a 15 year old taking naked pics of herself beeing charged with child pornography.

And she's supposed to have the immaturity not to do it. The fact is it takes two to commit statutory rape... unless the kid really IS seduced.

And she's supposed to have the immaturity not to do it.
Eeeh..no. Cause that would make her mature.
The fact is it takes two to commit statutory rape... unless the kid really IS seduced.
Well, yeah. But this was about a girl beeing charged with kiddie porn for taking naked pics of herself. So theres no statutory rape. Unless there is a way to rape yourself against your will. :D

Eeeh..no. Cause that would make her mature.

Well, yeah. But this was about a girl beeing charged with kiddie porn for taking naked pics of herself. So theres no statutory rape. Unless there is a way to rape yourself against your will. :D

Nope. No rape. Only disseminating kiddy porn, which should be a crime no matter who does it.

If the girl hadn't been showing the pictures to people online then there would have been no crime commited. But as it stands she was publishing child pornography on the internet, which is a felony is it not? She should be tried accordingly. Whether as an adult or not is hard to say though.

Think on this for a minute:

Sure, it was her choice to post the pictures, BUT....

....it was also those people's choices to view the photos. So, this goes right back to what I have been trying to explain:
It is all about personal choice. It is YOUR choice to view the photos. Noone told you or forced you to view them. They were simply placed there. Whether or not you choose to down load the pictures and beat off while looking at them....well, that is your choice, and therefore, YOU should be held accountable....not the person who posted them.

Everyone should be accountable for their actions. Both the viewer and the poster.
By your logic, if someone (perhaps their father) takes sexual pictures of some 10 year old girls, and sells them over the internet, he hasnt commited any crime? Please explain that one to me.

I'm not even going to get into this debate because I'm not confident of my own opinion here, but, here's a tidbit.

Technically, since non-standard intercourse is still a violation of "Age of Consent", by this ruling you could extrapoliate that any minor who masterbates is having sex with a minor- themselves, and thus is prosecutable. After all, if an adult were doing that to a child, it'd be wrong, so if a child did it to themselves, it follows based on this arrest that you could be prosecuted.

Very strange standard.

The government may as well place padlocked panties on all girls under 18. And I've no idea what they would do for guys...

I'm not even going to get into this debate because I'm not confident of my own opinion here, but, here's a tidbit.

Technically, since non-standard intercourse is still a violation of "Age of Consent", by this ruling you could extrapoliate that any minor who masterbates is having sex with a minor- themselves, and thus is prosecutable. After all, if an adult were doing that to a child, it'd be wrong, so if a child did it to themselves, it follows based on this arrest that you could be prosecuted.

Very strange standard.
No, as I believe if you are a minor you are immune from all of the age of consent things. I believe...

No, as I believe if you are a minor you are immune from all of the age of consent things. I believe...

No, let me try to re-explain. Now, sex with a teenager is illegal for an adult, as is child pornography. A teenager can be arrested for photographing themselves on the count of possession of child pornography. Therefore, a teenager that has sex with themselves (IE: masterbation) is having sex with a minor and should be arrested.

Loopholes- If masterbation is not counted as sex, this could be solved, but it allows adults to do the same to children. Thus is has to be considered that way.

No, let me try to re-explain. Now, sex with a teenager is illegal for an adult, as is child pornography. A teenager can be arrested for photographing themselves on the count of possession of child pornography. Therefore, a teenager that has sex with themselves (IE: masterbation) is having sex with a minor and should be arrested.

Loopholes- If masterbation is not counted as sex, this could be solved, but it allows adults to do the same to children. Thus is has to be considered that way.

Generally in most underage-sex laws, there is an exemption if participants are all under the age of consent and are within two years of age of each other. Ie, a 9yo and a 10yo mucking about together would not be an offence, but a 9yo and a 12yo would be.

As she is obviously within 2 years of her own age, this would disqualify the act. The laws are generally designed to stop someone from taking advantage of someone else's immaturity, not to stop all sex before the age of consent.

Generally in most underage-sex laws, there is an exemption if participants are all under the age of consent and are within two years of age of each other. Ie, a 9yo and a 10yo mucking about together would not be an offence, but a 9yo and a 12yo would be.

As she is obviously within 2 years of her own age, this would disqualify the act. The laws are generally designed to stop someone from taking advantage of someone else's immaturity, not to stop all sex before the age of consent.

This is a bit silly, quite frankly, they should be going after the perverts dling the stuff, not her (who is a bit misguided and needs counseling, but I know a few girls who would do that).

Her name will replace the word "irony" when she gets raped in jail?.

In this case, it seems to be a sort of catch-22 for the state tho. If the girl was too young to consent (in a legal sense) to having the pictures taken, then it should follow that she is too young to be legally responsible for her actions...
On the other hand, if she is old enough to be held legally responsible for commiting the "crime" then she is old enough to consent.

agree on this.

Btw, in Sweden you aren't a minor anymore after your 18th birthday. So a girl or boy doing porn before that is doing childporn.

Now, there is a guy who have made pornmovie with girls that have been 16-17 years old. He knew how old they where. In some cases they released the movies after they became 18 making it legal, sometimes they made fake IDs(and in those cases he claims he didn't know they where under age). But! There are some cases where they where sloppy. The girl was under age when the film was released and they had no way to explain this and I think they admitet to atleast beeing sloppy. However, in the court of law he was decleared unguilty because it couldn't be seen as childporn as they thought the under-aged girls could be taken as 18 or older.

The question that pops in my head... Would it be illegal to spread erotic pictures etc of a girl who is 18+ but looks younger?

No, the records are either sealed or destroyed (I'm thinking sealed) after they turn 18. However, if she's tried as an adult, they will stay on her record. She will be branded a sex offender.

Ah but if they treat her as an adult then she could legally post any pictures she wants.

Would they have arrested her for posting pictures of herself wielding a small variety of guns?

I bet lawyers are champing at the bit to get some press time on this case - both defense and prosecution...

I'm not even going to get into this debate because I'm not confident of my own opinion here, but, here's a tidbit.

Technically, since non-standard intercourse is still a violation of "Age of Consent", by this ruling you could extrapoliate that any minor who masterbates is having sex with a minor- themselves, and thus is prosecutable. After all, if an adult were doing that to a child, it'd be wrong, so if a child did it to themselves, it follows based on this arrest that you could be prosecuted.

Very strange standard.

Nope. 'Cause "age of consent" laws are worded in terms like "of a person at or above the age of x has sex with a person below the age of y". So two underaged persons are not commiting a crime if they have sex with one another.

So if an adult had placed them there, with her "consent", that should be legal too?
Yes.

Nope. 'Cause "age of consent" laws are worded in terms like "of a person at or above the age of x has sex with a person below the age of y". So two underaged persons are not commiting a crime if they have sex with one another.
But then if one of them turns 16 before the other does....

Good god . . . there was a girl who did this at my school as well!

What a legal mess. Protecting a child from "self-abuse"?
They should concentrate on catching peds who are probably being protected by corrupt ped government officials.

I won't read all the posts on this thread...but suffice to say that we can do two things, we can do (A) Charge the minor with intent to distribute child pornography, not the actual possession...just the intent to distribute, and (B)Charge the adults with possession of child pornography, if I was the DA, I'd tell the girl...deal with us, tell us who all you sent the pics too, and at worst you get a year in juvenile. It's the adults I want, not you..that's what I'd do if I was the DA there.

Any chance someone can tell me what chatrooms she frequents? :D

Seriously, it seems rather pathetic to charge a 15 year old for taking and distributing pics of herself, and the fact that she's naked and performing sexual acts in them makes no difference to me. What would have been a crime, to my sense of justice that is, is if someone else took those pics by manipulation or force.

Any chance someone can tell me what chatrooms she frequents? :D

Seriously, it seems rather pathetic to charge a 15 year old for taking and distributing pics of herself, and the fact that she's naked and performing sexual acts in them makes no difference to me. What would have been a crime, to my sense of justice that is, is if someone else took those pics by manipulation or force.

It makes no difference that a minor is performing sex acts, photographing herself and sending them to men?...I have to say this shocked me..and if it were your daughter?....I say charge her with the intent on making her realize the stupidity she exhibited, stalkers....pedophiles..etc..all could possibly locate her..and the fact that she is doing this with adult males means she needs therapy in my book in that she needs to understand this is not acceptable behavior of a 15 yr old girl for pete's sake.

Charge and get the names of the adults she sent the pics too, then send her on a reduced sentence to juvenile and let her contemplate her actions.

It makes no difference that a minor is performing sex acts, photographing herself and sending them to men?...I have to say this shocked me..and if it were your daughter?....I say charge her with the intent on making her realize the stupidity she exhibited, stalkers....pedophiles..etc..all could possibly locate her..

You really believe stalkers and pedophiles wouldn't target a girl who isn't sending pics of that nature over the net? I doubt she'd be at extra risk because she did send naked pics of herself.

And if she were my daughter I'd have a long talk with her, informing her of the potential dangers, and leave it to her to make the wisest decision. She's 15 after all, a fine age to start making your own decisions, and if she gets into trouble then it's for her to learn from her mistakes, only way to grow up the way I see it. :)

and the fact that she is doing this with adult males means she needs therapy in my book in that she needs to understand this is not acceptable behavior of a 15 yr old girl for pete's sake.

That's open for debate. Personally, I wouldn't be overly concerned if my daughter would choose to express her sexuality that way at the age of 15. Not saying I'd like it, far from it, but again, at the age of 15 I wouldn't want to babysit her.

Charge and get the names of the adults she sent the pics too, then send her on a reduced sentence to juvenile and let her contemplate her actions.

I doubt this will have the desired result. Seeing how she's a teen it would probably only make her recalcitrant.

BTW How about sending me the names of those forums she frequents? I know you have them!! ;)

You really believe stalkers and pedophiles wouldn't target a girl who isn't sending pics of that nature over the net? I doubt she'd be at extra risk because she did send naked pics of herself.

And if she were my daughter I'd have a long talk with her, informing her of the potential dangers, and leave it to her to make the wisest decision. She's 15 after all, a fine age to start making your own decisions, and if she gets into trouble then it's for her to learn from her mistakes, only way to grow up the way I see it. :)



That's open for debate. Personally, I wouldn't be overly concerned if my daughter would choose to express her sexuality that way at the age of 15. Not saying I'd like it, far from it, but again, at the age of 15 I wouldn't want to babysit her.



I doubt this will have the desired result. Seeing how she's a teen it would probably only make her recalcitrant.

BTW How about sending me the names of those forums she frequents? I know you have them!! ;)

Psssstt....you swore you wouldn't tell anyone dammit...now the secret is out. Oh this is just great..man..you can't keep a secret at all can you..

Psssstt....you swore you wouldn't tell anyone dammit...now the secret is out. Oh this is just great..man..you can't keep a secret at all can you..

LOL

Well, you had to brag about it or else I wouldn't have known myself. :p

Maybe this will teach her a lesson.

The law must apply to all, otherwise adult perverts would pay kids to distribute the child porn to circumvent the law. Loopholes must not be allowed.

Any chance someone can tell me what chatrooms she frequents? :D
Why, cos you want to get arrested?

It makes no difference that a minor is performing sex acts, photographing herself and sending them to men?...I have to say this shocked me..and if it were your daughter?....I say charge her with the intent on making her realize the stupidity she exhibited, stalkers....pedophiles..etc..all could possibly locate her..and the fact that she is doing this with adult males means she needs therapy in my book in that she needs to understand this is not acceptable behavior of a 15 yr old girl for pete's sake.

Charge and get the names of the adults she sent the pics too, then send her on a reduced sentence to juvenile and let her contemplate her actions.
Without a doubt she's stupid, but we can't lock people up just for that. For one thing there aren't enough prisions. The thing is, that its always seemed to me that the law would be for the purpose of protecting children from perverts, right? So if shes not in danger, if no-one is forcing her to do anything against her will... whats the damage? Who is being protected by the law being enforced in these circumstances?

Maybe this will teach her a lesson.

The law must apply to all, otherwise adult perverts would pay kids to distribute the child porn to circumvent the law. Loopholes must not be allowed.
Yeah, but she's not being paid for this. And I don't think that she should be given a green light to distribute this stuff either, I just think thats its nuts to put her in jail or put something like this on her criminal record.

Yeah, but she's not being paid for this. And I don't think that she should be given a green light to distribute this stuff either, I just think thats its nuts to put her in jail or put something like this on her criminal record.


Well it's obvious her parents, if she has any, have failed her miserably. Either that or she is a victim of the sick society that we live in today that sexualizes the youth at increasingly younger ages.

Whatever the case, she needs to see a psychiatrist for certain, and possibly a preacher for some spiritual guidance.

Why, cos you want to get arrested?

You can get arrested for frequenting a forum now? :eek:

Yah that's gonna be a tough case to crack. But if they identify the people who got photos, they could all be charged instead of her.

But then if one of them turns 16 before the other does....

Buffer zone... here in n.c. it's 3 years, so if she's 15 and one day when he turns 18, it's ok.

So if an adult had placed them there, with her "consent", that should be legal too?Yes.

So basically you're only against kiddy porn if it is made without the minor's consent? R/L rape porn and peeping tom pictures are illegal anyway, aren't they? So... basically you're not against kiddy porn at all, are you?

You really believe stalkers and pedophiles wouldn't target a girl who isn't sending pics of that nature over the net? I doubt she'd be at extra risk because she did send naked pics of herself.

You really think stalkers and pedophiles select their targets at random, and that minors who interact sexually over the internet are smart enough not to give out detail of how to find them? They are "looking for it" after all.

In my days as an Op in a bdsm channel on DalNet (yes, DalNet ... run to DalNet all you pervs) I have had several conversations with minors that I have had to kick/ban from the channel, telling them about stalking and internet safety. One little twit even used her real name in log-in, a pretty rare last name, and was on a tiny little local server. I had to tell her that her home fucking address was a few clicks away for anyone who wanted to come visit her irl.

Now anyone that naive could still pick up a stalker in just about any other chatroom, on any network. BUT... she came into a channel based on kinky sex, which had been in the past frequented by at least one known serial killer (yes, this story just keeps getting uglier). Are you really so naive as to believe that where someone goes and what someone does has no effect on the level of risk they are exposed to?

And if she were my daughter I'd have a long talk with her, informing her of the potential dangers, and leave it to her to make the wisest decision. She's 15 after all, a fine age to start making your own decisions, and if she gets into trouble then it's for her to learn from her mistakes, only way to grow up the way I see it. :)


That's open for debate. Personally, I wouldn't be overly concerned if my daughter would choose to express her sexuality that way at the age of 15. Not saying I'd like it, far from it, but again, at the age of 15 I wouldn't want to babysit her.

If she lives long enough to grow up. And while you may feel that the age of consent should be lowered to 15, I do not. Even if I ever thought about it, my conversation with the above mentioned moron convinced me that far too many young people wouldn't know a stalker from someone showing up to check the cable connection. Maybe your daughter is smart enough, so if you want to give her more freedom at the expense of the safety of all the total fucking retards in her class, and the lives of a few, feel free to attempt to have the law changed. I will do what I can to make sure that you fail.

So basically you're only against kiddy porn if it is made without the minor's consent? R/L rape porn and peeping tom pictures are illegal anyway, aren't they? So... basically you're not against kiddy porn at all, are you?
I think that at the very minimum there needs to be a discussion about how things like the age of consent work. Its an absurd and illogical boundary. There also needs to be some sort of more workable defintion of the terminology in place for describing photos and media like this, words like "sexually explicit", "pornograpic", "erotic" and "artistic". As it currently stands, the laws regarding child pornography are simply wrong. They've made something illegal and feared without defining what that "something" is, and you can be put in danger of either jail time or quite possibly your life merely for viewing these images. Artists and, in the example shown here, teenagers, are the targets of the law just as frequently as peadophiles are. And while I believe that children should be protected from peadophiles, I do not think that the law as it stands does this properly. I also believe strongly in the principle of liberty as defined by Mill, that it should extend as far as possible so long as it doesn't harm anyone else. Therefore I find it insane that in a case like this, someone should be prosecuted in a crime where no-one whatsoever is harmed or taken advantage of. Yes, I am opposed to child pornography, but for the safety of children, rather than to pad the crime statistics or stand on a moral highground with a lynchmob who want to kill anyone even rumored to be a peadophile.

Okay, it's safe to say it's a messed-up idea to prosecute somebody for what they did to themselves. Then again, why did she do it in the first place?
Now that's a question to last.

http://www.forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=336703

I put my points better here. Its a thread about a UN resolution to ban child pornography.

Outlaw Child Pornography (5th draft)
A resolution to restrict civil rights in interest of morality.

DEEPLY DISTURBED by the continued proliferation and distribution of pornographic material featuring minors by member nations.

CONDEMNING such practices by all nations, especially member nations.

NOTING WITH SATISFACTION that the greater assembly has already passed a resolution banning child molestation.

1) CALLS UPON the greater assembly to, effective immediately, ban the sale, publication, and distribution of all forms of child pornography.

2a) DEFINING “child pornography” as any media, including, but not limited to, photos, videos, and digital media, featuring a minor involved in a sexual situation, including, but not limited to, masturbation, fondling, any form of penetration (excluding consumption of food), or depiction of a minor in a state of sexual arousal.
2b) INCLUDING, in the definition presented in clause 2a, any written media featuring detailed accounts of acts described in aforementioned clause.

3a) DESIGNATES the right to decide upon the definition of “minor” to each individual member nation, on the condition that all non-minors be considered adults in the eyes of the law.
3b) SETS the minimum acceptable age at which one becomes an adult to 12

4) NOTES that exempt from clause 2b of this resolution are any media recognized by a private board assembled by the respective peoples of the individual member nation as documentary or informative in nature.
I'm sorry, but I'm a delegate, and I have to oppose this. Its not because I like child pornography, or think that people's freedoms should come above a child's security, its because its a reactionary issue. Whenever anything like this comes up, almost invariably no provisions are provided for the defination of child pornography (creating a situation where effectively you're saying little more than "Bogglywoggly: BAD!!!" without anyone knowing what Bogglywoggly is.) This resolution isn't too bad on that front, but I'm still not happy with the definitions, they are too broad-encompassing and would allow people to be prosecuted for, for example, pictures of their own young children naked which most parent possesses, or photographic art collections such as Jock Sturges', who is an artist who has had a lot of trouble with people trying to get him prosecuted for his art. To say that these photos would not be "erotic" is quite frankly, not in the UN's remit. Its not up to the UN to define art (not within this resolution anyway), or to perscribe how people ought to feel when they look at a picture or read an article.

There are also no provisions for accidental possession of material, through an unspecified download, as in a fairly recent case in the UK. Nor are there provisions for pictures of people of questionable age; the difference between an erotic or pornographic photo of a less developed person over the age of 12 and a more developed 11 year old is impossible to define without locating the model. (In this resolution the minimum age limit is 12, but any age can be used here, and personally I would set it higher.) To take, for example, the fact that a website or video company claims that all their models are of a legal age is clearly not enough of a gaurentee (as they could be lying or misinformed), and it is not clear in a case such as this whether the person who viewed images which they believed to be legal would be prosecuted if they didn't know, it is impossible to tell whether or not they did know, and it is difficult or impossible to tell whether or not the company or individual providing the images knew, did not know, was misled or did not ask, so who is to blame in such cases is not easy to define.

It is also possible for a company to advertise images as "under age", when they are in fact not. Would they be punished in that case? Would a viewer or reader be breaking the law if they intended to take material which was illegal but was in fact not?

The aim of the resolution is important here as well, and while extremely admirable, I do not believe that it fulfils it's own goal. Say for example I set the age of majority at 18 in my country. Imagine someone who consented to have a photo taken of them at the age of 17, and who consented again when they were 18 for that photo to remain or be put in whatever form of media distribution it was placed in. Surely there can be no suggestion that the person in question has been exploited? They have consented when the picture was taken, they have consented when it is to be distributed. What purpose does it serve to criminalise the distributer, viewer or participant of this photo? Protection of the subject? Protection of the moral fabric of society? No.

Furthermore, I can think of at least one work of literature which is about sexual acts with a minor, is a fictional account so neither informative nor documentary and would be rendered illegal by this resolution. I am referring of course to Lolita. Would every individual or organisation owning a copy of this book held accountable under this resolution? Currently, I believe they would be. The Silver State of Spoffin would in fact be forced to prosecute its own leader, as I have read the book and own a copy.

In short, I'm voting no because the resolution does not achieve what it sets out to do, and I don't think that any amount of amendments or rewording can change that.

What makes me uneasy is that there is still a dilemma. I don't think that this resolution's aim is to define art. However, with adult nudity, there has always been an issue as to whether the nakedness counts as art or whether it is pornography; not a particularly material debate when both are legal, but some way of defining art from porn is important in the case where one is allowed and one will land you in jail.

I think that at the very minimum there needs to be a discussion about how things like the age of consent work. Its an absurd and illogical boundary. There also needs to be some sort of more workable defintion of the terminology in place for describing photos and media like this, words like "sexually explicit", "pornograpic", "erotic" and "artistic". As it currently stands, the laws regarding child pornography are simply wrong. They've made something illegal and feared without defining what that "something" is, and you can be put in danger of either jail time or quite possibly your life merely for viewing these images. Artists and, in the example shown here, teenagers, are the targets of the law just as frequently as peadophiles are. And while I believe that children should be protected from peadophiles, I do not think that the law as it stands does this properly. I also believe strongly in the principle of liberty as defined by Mill, that it should extend as far as possible so long as it doesn't harm anyone else. Therefore I find it insane that in a case like this, someone should be prosecuted in a crime where no-one whatsoever is harmed or taken advantage of. Yes, I am opposed to child pornography, but for the safety of children, rather than to pad the crime statistics or stand on a moral highground with a lynchmob who want to kill anyone even rumored to be a peadophile.

So you think the pictures she sent were art and not porn? Maybe they were, and if so I am sure that her lawyer will use that in court. But your past posts seem to strongly suggest that there should not be laws against nude pics of minors that were taken with the minor's consent. You said nothing of art, so... it certainly sounds like you are in favour of kiddy porn.

No one was hurt? How about some internet perv who had never thought of being with a minor before? How about his daughter and his daughter's friends?

No one was hurt? How about some internet perv who had never thought of being with a minor before? How about his daughter and his daughter's friends?
Those are potential, hypothetical casualties. Thats like me saying that anyone who buys a gun is already a murderer

Those are potential, hypothetical casualties. Thats like me saying that anyone who buys a gun is already a murderer

Anybody who uses kiddy porn is already a pedophile. They might not have acted on it yet and they might never, but if they weren't before she sent them her pics, they have been harmed.

So you think the pictures she sent were art and not porn? Maybe they were, and if so I am sure that her lawyer will use that in court. But your past posts seem to strongly suggest that there should not be laws against nude pics of minors that were taken with the minor's consent. You said nothing of art, so... it certainly sounds like you are in favour of kiddy porn.

Well, not having seen the pictures I couldn't say whether they're art, although I'll guess probably not.

I don't know exactly where I'd come down on the issue, but I would find it hard as a judge or a member of a jury to prosecute someone in a case where consent is given, and the person in question is not so far below the age of consent to be judged incapable of knowing the consequences of the decisions. (ie: their giving consent wouldn't be because they were tricked or influenced by someone else)

Anybody who uses kiddy porn is already a pedophile. They might not have acted on it yet and they might never, but if they weren't before she sent them her pics, they have been harmed.
Right, okay, analogy problem here. You think that a murderer is someone who's killed someone, but you don't have to have comitted any sexual act with a minor to be a peadophile. I can accept that, just let me reword it slightly.

You said that there were victims (daughter, daughter's friends) in the act of distributing child porn. I meant to say in response that that's like saying that if someone buys a gun, there are victims from that. Neither is necessarily true, the victims are hypothetical.

You're quite right though about the person being a peadophile before the acts are comitted, its a psychological condition, whereas murderer would just be a term to describe someone who has murdered someone.

. . .

You're quite right though about the person being a peadophile before the acts are comitted, its a psychological condition, whereas murderer would just be a term to describe someone who has murdered someone.

Yes, I am quite right. And since you point out the pedophelia is a psychological condition... can you say "mental illness"? Good. I thought you could.

SO get back to the previously innocent pervert who is looking for porn pics of nude women... he sees this little felon's pics posted somewhere and it turns him on. He fantasizes about it and it grows in him and maybe he never acts on it, but now he is a victim, just like any user who gets his first taste from any pusher.

Kiddy porn, not just kiddy sex, is illegal. For a reason.

Oh and what about the guy who buys some military grade weaponry on the black market, but never uses it? Do you think depleted uranium shells should be legal until somebody kills someone with them?

Yes, I am quite right. And since you point out the pedophelia is a psychological condition... can you say "mental illness"? Good. I thought you could.
Yes, thats a much better term for it. Synonym lapse there


SO get back to the previously innocent pervert who is looking for porn pics of nude women... he sees this little felon's pics posted somewhere and it turns him on. He fantasizes about it and it grows in him and maybe he never acts on it, but now he is a victim, just like any user who gets his first taste from any pusher.

Kiddy porn, not just kiddy sex, is illegal. For a reason.You think that a) the makeup for that "change" doesn't exist within him already and b)That theres likely to be so major a difference between this 15yr old and an under-developed 18yr old that he can't sate himself with regular porn?

Oh and what about the guy who buys some military grade weaponry on the black market, but never uses it? Do you think depleted uranium shells should be legal until somebody kills someone with them?No I don't. I don't think guns should be legal either, cos they pose an inherant threat. But there are no actual victims until someone is killed.

No I don't. I don't think guns should be legal either, cos they pose an inherant threat. But there are no actual victims until someone is killed.

So... if guns were illegal... what would you do with people who buy sell and possess them?

So... if guns were illegal... what would you do with people who buy sell and possess them?Take them off them, fine or imprision repeat offenders.

Yes, thats a much better term for it. Synonym lapse there

You think that a) the makeup for that "change" doesn't exist within him already and b)That theres likely to be so major a difference between this 15yr old and an under-developed 18yr old that he can't sate himself with regular porn?

If the girl has a set already and the right curves it exists in all of us who are aroused by the female human body. That's not the point. Can someone withdrawing from crack keep himself drunk until his withdrawels fade? Sure. He still got his first taste from a crack pusher, most likely. Those who distribute kiddy porn are and should be criminals.

Take them off them, fine or imprision repeat offenders.

And why wait? Why not fine or imprison them the first time? They knew it was illegal, didn't they?

Where are these pictures?

No I don't. I don't think guns should be legal either, cos they pose an inherant threat. But there are no actual victims until someone is killed.

Down here in australia there are strict anti-gun laws which came about after a massacre in Port Arthur. There was a massive conspiracy thing going on, and a mentaly handi-capped guy blamed. It turns out that the hit rate... well I'll let this do the talking

On Sunday 28 April 1996, an unknown professional combat shooter opened fire in the Broad Arrow Cafe at Port Arthur in Tasmania. In less than a minute 20 people lay dead, 19 of them killed with single shots to the head, fired from the right hip of the fast-moving shooter. The awesome display of combat marksmanship was blamed on intellectually impaired Martin Bryant, who was held in illegal strict solitary confinement for more than 120 days, until he was "ready" to plead guilty. There was no trial. Within a matter of weeks legislation was passed to removed semi-automatic weapons from the Australian population and a gun buy-back proceeded. It is now illegal to own any semi-automatic gun in Australia.

there is more to it too... but I'm not going to go into it here, I'll just add a site or two you can look at if you aer interested:

http://members.austarmetro.com.au/~hubbca/port_arthur.htm

http://www.davidicke.net/tellthetruth/conspiracy/parthur1.html

THOMAS JEFFERSON
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government".

well this seems to have little to do with the topic of the discussion, but it is mainly a point that the government abuses the law to get their own way. they freely create unreal situations to support points.

Now this girl with the nudie photos... is it just me, or is this another abuse of power by the system? in australia, you can buy softcore porn at 15, have consentual sex at 16, but not let anyone see you naked until you are 18 seems a bit odd to me... make people moraly depraved first... anyway, I'm not saying that it should be flipped aroung, just evend... if you are ready to have consentual sex in the eyes of the law, then yhou are ready to be seen naked... who knows what I'm on about, and i'm not sure myself... I as hell haven't made any real points here...

OK... I'll try ONE LAST TIME. Those pictures she took of herself. there was no-one else involved in the taking of those pictures. if she felt the need to show herself to the world, to make that decision herself without any outside pressure, then that should be ok, fine and dandy... people don't have to accept the pictures. if on the other hand she was pressured or conned into taking them, then that isn't quite right. what I'm getting at is that the government is abusing power by removing our right to think or act in a way we feel to be approprite. if no harm is done to any one else, and the harm done to you was entirely self inflicted, then that should be ok. the government should provide conselling, to try to change her mind on the issue instead of piling criminal charges on her. just piling charges on won't make her stop it, it will probably make her think about it a bit, but chances are she won't fully understand the charges.. damn I'd be surprised if a fully grown adult would fully understand the charges if put in that position...

I'm not sure if that made sense either, but I tried...

You really think stalkers and pedophiles select their targets at random, and that minors who interact sexually over the internet are smart enough not to give out detail of how to find them? They are "looking for it" after all.

Looking to be abused by a phedophile? I doubt it. And how are "interacting sexually over the net" and "intelligence" in any way connected? Or maybe you want to argue that such behaviour is only possible if your iq is below 50?

In my days as an Op in a bdsm channel on DalNet (yes, DalNet ... run to DalNet all you pervs) I have had several conversations with minors that I have had to kick/ban from the channel, telling them about stalking and internet safety. One little twit even used her real name in log-in, a pretty rare last name, and was on a tiny little local server. I had to tell her that her home fucking address was a few clicks away for anyone who wanted to come visit her irl.

The problem here is obviously the minors' ignorance. Which is why I earlier suggested that if she were my daughter I'd have a talk with her about the potential dangers of the net. Obviously I would have had that talk long before she even got close to the net. Which is why I think that the parents, who after all carry the responsibility to look after her, failed in their task as their daughter's guardians in a rather hostile world.

Are you really so naive as to believe that where someone goes and what someone does has no effect on the level of risk they are exposed to?

Luckily for me I never said that. :)

Nice attempt on your side to put words in my mouth though.

What I did say is that in this case I doubt her behaviour to have put her in greater danger then if she hadn't sent out those pics. I doubt you can prove otherwise, but if you can show some statistics to make your case then I'd be most interested in taking a look at them.

If she lives long enough to grow up. And while you may feel that the age of consent should be lowered to 15, I do not. Even if I ever thought about it, my conversation with the above mentioned moron convinced me that far too many young people wouldn't know a stalker from someone showing up to check the cable connection. Maybe your daughter is smart enough, so if you want to give her more freedom at the expense of the safety of all the total fucking retards in her class, and the lives of a few, feel free to attempt to have the law changed. I will do what I can to make sure that you fail.

I don't care for lowering the age of consent. I do, however, fail to see how anything beyond a good talk with her would benefit anyone. At the age of fifteen very few care for what an adult has to say to them, and any severe punishment would probably only have the opposite effect; make them rebellious and incommunicative. In three years she'll be an adult, and if at the age of fifteen she isn't given the chance to gradually start making her own decisions and hopefully learn from any mistakes that follow, she'll be totally unprepared to face the responsibilities that suddenly land on her shoulders the day she turns eighteen.

. . .

Luckily for me I never said that. :)

Nice attempt on your side to put words in my mouth though.

What I did say is that in this case I doubt her behaviour to have put her in greater danger then if she hadn't sent out those pics. I doubt you can prove otherwise, but if you can show some statistics to make your case then I'd be most interested in taking a look at them.

You said basically (and you did not use the words "in this case" as if it were unique) that what she does OL doesn't make her any less safe than if she didn't. OK, you refuse to see the logical extension of what you said... not my fault :rolleyes:

And anyway, it does. Chatting and sending pics attracts perverts more than just chatting with them does. If you don't get how that works, please do not bother to reply.

I don't care for lowering the age of consent. I do, however, fail to see how anything beyond a good talk with her would benefit anyone. At the age of fifteen very few care for what an adult has to say to them, and any severe punishment would probably only have the opposite effect; make them rebellious and incommunicative. In three years she'll be an adult, and if at the age of fifteen she isn't given the chance to gradually start making her own decisions and hopefully learn from any mistakes that follow, she'll be totally unprepared to face the responsibilities that suddenly land on her shoulders the day she turns eighteen.

You could say that about just about any kid who had commited just about any crime.

Hear me now and believe me later: she did not exploit herself. She did not have illegal sex with herself. I don't even know if the laws where she lives or on the federal level define her taking porno pictures of herself to be a crime.

What she did was transimit child pornography over a wire service. That is a crime. That should always be a crime. It should not matter if the person commiting that crime could also qualify as a victim of a statutory age based sex crime.

Zero tolerence.