NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.com.com/Police+blotter+Teens+prosecuted+for+racy+photos/2100-1030_3-6157857.html?tag=st.num

What: Teenagers taking risque photos of themselves are prosecuted for violating child pornography laws.

When: Florida state appeals court rules on January 19.

Outcome: A 2-1 majority upholds conviction on grounds the girl produced a photograph featuring the sexual conduct of a child.

Ok, so Florida courts have held that a minor cannot be prosecuted for sex with another minor, as long as neither was forced. So neither of these teens could have been prosecuted for actually having sex.

However, because they took pictures - pictures which neither made any attempt to share with anyone else - they can be prosecuted for making child pornography.

The court has upheld the girl's conviction with the basic argument, "She is unable to fathom what she was doing, so she should be criminally charged," and, "ZOMG! People can haxor their computers!" :eek:

Anyone else find this to be utterly ridiculous?

http://news.com.com/Police+blotter+Teens+prosecuted+for+racy+photos/2100-1030_3-6157857.html?tag=st.num



Ok, so Florida courts have held that a minor cannot be prosecuted for sex with another minor, as long as neither was forced. So neither of these teens could have been prosecuted for actually having sex.

However, because they took pictures - pictures which neither made any attempt to share with anyone else - they can be prosecuted for making child pornography.

The court has upheld the girl's conviction with the basic argument, "She is unable to fathom what she was doing, so she should be criminally charged," and, "ZOMG! People can haxor their computers!" :eek:

Anyone else find this to be utterly ridiculous?

Never mind utterly ridiculous, it's fucking stupid. "You're too young to know what you're doing, so we'll prosecute you for doing it". With cases like these, no wonder the rest of the world thinks Americans are all morons. What's more, one of the idiots who was FOR this being a crime said "Mere production of these videos or pictures may also result in psychological trauma to the teenagers involved" - so basically he's saying it's O.K. to prosecute a person for a crime which they are a victim of - like someone gets beaten up with a baseball bat, so the person who has been beaten up gets prosecuted for assault. Fucking stupid. Your judges are worse than ours (English judges), and that's saying something.

http://news.com.com/Police+blotter+Teens+prosecuted+for+racy+photos/2100-1030_3-6157857.html?tag=st.num



Ok, so Florida courts have held that a minor cannot be prosecuted for sex with another minor, as long as neither was forced. So neither of these teens could have been prosecuted for actually having sex.

However, because they took pictures - pictures which neither made any attempt to share with anyone else - they can be prosecuted for making child pornography.

The court has upheld the girl's conviction with the basic argument, "She is unable to fathom what she was doing, so she should be criminally charged," and, "ZOMG! People can haxor their computers!" :eek:

Anyone else find this to be utterly ridiculous?
Isn't there already a thread on this?

EDIT: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=517684

Florida Courts:

http://www.aoe.vt.edu/~cdhall/img/Idiocy.jpg

Isn't there already a thread on this?

EDIT: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=517684

Oops. Sorry, must have missed that one.

Meh. Camsluts are of no consequence to me.


All across youtube and photobucket, there are thousands of girls who thought their shit wasn't gonna get leaked out into the world because they kept their video a secret or made their PB account private: lawl.

That shit gets out. Idiot kids should know not to be idiots. If they took the pictures, chances are someone will see and/or copy/send the pictures.

Don't -prosecute- them, just smack them upside the face and tell them to GTFO my internets before they clog all the tubes.

...That shit gets out. Idiot kids should know not to be idiots... Pot. Kettle. Black.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Mother. May. I.



I haven't taken/posted nudies of myself or my girlfriend anywhere, I fail to see how I'm in even the same ballpark as the aforementioned idiots.

"She is unable to fathom what she was doing, so she should be criminally charged," You'd have thought that would work in her favour.

I don't whether to laugh or cry... so, I'll just do both! :p

Mother. May. I.



I haven't taken/posted nudies of myself or my girlfriend anywhere, I fail to see how I'm in even the same ballpark as the aforementioned idiots.

Never said you were. That proves my point :)

Meh. Camsluts are of no consequence to me.


All across youtube and photobucket, there are thousands of girls who thought their shit wasn't gonna get leaked out into the world because they kept their video a secret or made their PB account private: lawl.

That shit gets out. Idiot kids should know not to be idiots. If they took the pictures, chances are someone will see and/or copy/send the pictures.

Don't -prosecute- them, just smack them upside the face and tell them to GTFO my internets before they clog all the tubes.

The problem with child pornography (at least leagal problem) is the fact that it can not be made without harming a child which is why we make laws to protect these children.

This ruling is not protecting thoes children it is hurting them

Who cares if the images leak out the harm has been done, and more harm caused by the courts.

Meh. Camsluts are of no consequence to me.


All across youtube and photobucket, there are thousands of girls who thought their shit wasn't gonna get leaked out into the world because they kept their video a secret or made their PB account private: lawl.

That shit gets out. Idiot kids should know not to be idiots. If they took the pictures, chances are someone will see and/or copy/send the pictures.

Don't -prosecute- them, just smack them upside the face and tell them to GTFO my internets before they clog all the tubes.

Prosecuting them will work though, whereas nothing else will. Idiots won't know not to be idiots, you have to make them using the law.

Prosecuting them will work though, whereas nothing else will. Idiots won't know not to be idiots, you have to make them using the law.

Greater Trostia - A good example of why the rest of the world thinks Americans are all morons (even if you're not American GT). Prosecuting someone for being a victim of a crime is fucking dumb. DUMB!

The problem with child pornography (at least leagal problem) is the fact that it can not be made without harming a child which is why we make laws to protect these children.

This ruling is not protecting thoes children it is hurting them

Who cares if the images leak out the harm has been done, and more harm caused by the courts.

That's arguable, but I see your point. This could be seen as a case where a poorly-worded law was taken too far.

While you may be right, I'd still like to say that my point stands, on a personal note, not so much a legal one.

Mother. May. I.



I haven't taken/posted nudies of myself or my girlfriend anywhere, I fail to see how I'm in even the same ballpark as the aforementioned idiots.
They didn't post their pictures anywhere, you are playing left field for them.

They didn't post their pictures anywhere, you are playing left field for them.

*shrugs* They still took the pictures and put them on their computers. Again, on a strictly personal stance, I think they're idiots for doing so. Legally, I can't say.

The problem with child pornography (at least leagal problem) is the fact that it can not be made without harming a child which is why we make laws to protect these children.

This ruling is not protecting thoes children it is hurting them

Who cares if the images leak out the harm has been done, and more harm caused by the courts.No. The problem is the legal system's bolloxed itself in this situation. If they'd ruled it was ok, the next creepy paedo to persuade a stupid kid to make & publish porn of itself, would be all but immune to persecution.

So yes, it's fucked up to bash a kid for something entirely innocent, but so's the alternative.

That said, I'm in no way defending the idiotic ruling. The legal system is there to persue justice, not to try making the best of a deficient system. If the system's deficient, it'll simply have to be altered. And that's not the job of courts.

That said, I'm in no way defending the idiotic ruling. The legal system is there to persue justice, not to try making the best of a deficient system. If the system's deficient, it'll simply have to be altered. And that's not the job of courts.

For me, I really could care less if these two took pictures of themselves as long as they don't share them with anyone. Then it would be the same as child pornography but that didn't happen. Seems like they just targeted a couple of kids who dared to document their fun. And that last bit of charging the boy with possession of child porn? What a joke.

No. The problem is the legal system's bolloxed itself in this situation. If they'd ruled it was ok, the next creepy paedo to persuade a stupid kid to make & publish porn of itself, would be all but immune to persecution.

No they wouldn't be - there is a difference between an adult and a child, and if the court ruled this case was O.K., it would not set ANY precedent for paedophiles to get away with their crimes - any future court would realise that the decision in this case (had the court taken the correct decision - that the kids did nothing wrong) was taken soley because it made sense NOT to prosecute or encourage the prosecution of a victim just because the law has not been written clearly enough; the future court would NOT think that the decision meant all paedophiles should get away with their crimes, unless the judges were as dumb as those in this case.

For me, I really could care less if these two took pictures of themselves as long as they don't share them with anyone. Then it would be the same as child pornography but that didn't happen. Seems like they just targeted a couple of kids who dared to document their fun. And that last bit of charging the boy with possession of child porn? What a joke.

Even if the kids shared the pics (with permission from each other), it would still be ridiculous to prosecute them - it would still be prosecuting the victims of a crime, which is fucked up.

For me, I really could care less if these two took pictures of themselves as long as they don't share them with anyone. Then it would be the same as child pornography but that didn't happen. Seems like they just targeted a couple of kids who dared to document their fun. And that last bit of charging the boy with possession of child porn? What a joke.As I said, I completely agree. But the reason the court didn't is because in legal terms, what they did was recording & publishing kiddy porn. Whatever ruling the court made would set a precedent, and if that precedent was that it's ok to record & publish kiddy porn if it's a minor doing it, it'd open the floodgates for actual paedos convincing minors to record & publish their kiddy porn for them.

Obviously the court concluded it was in the best interest of everyone to avoid that, even at the expense of two innocent kids.

No. The problem is the legal system's bolloxed itself in this situation. If they'd ruled it was ok, the next creepy paedo to persuade a stupid kid to make & publish porn of itself, would be all but immune to persecution.

No, they wouldn't. Solicitation of child pornography is a crime. Exploitation of children is a crime.

A 16-year old cannot be prosecuting for having sex with a 16-year old in FL. However, a creepy old guy can. The fact that a child is not prosecuted for something says nothing of the law as it applies to adults.

As I said, I completely agree. But the reason the court didn't is because in legal terms, what they did was recording & publishing kiddy porn.

Actually, the pictures were not published. The court's ruling was based on the remote possibility of someone else intercepting the photos or hacking into the computers to get them.

Whatever ruling the court made would set a precedent, and if that precedent was that it's ok to record & publish kiddy porn if it's a minor doing it, it'd open the floodgates for actual paedos convincing minors to record & publish their kiddy porn for them.

No, it wouldn't. If the courts had ruled that these teens could not be prosecuted, it wouldn't have helped actual criminals at all. Solicitation of and possession of child pornography is still a crime for which adults can be prosecuted.

No they wouldn't be - there is a difference between an adult and a child,Which is irrelevant to this particular argument.it would not set ANY precedent for paedophiles to get away with their crimesIt quite clearly would. The US legal system doesn't operate on common sense.the law has not been written clearly enough
the judges were as dumb.The problem in a nutshell, yes.

Even if the kids shared the pics (with permission from each other), it would still be ridiculous to prosecute them - it would still be prosecuting the victims of a crime, which is fucked up.

But then it would be the same thing as pornography. And it really doesn't matter if they consent or not, like it or not they are still minors and their pictures is what should be in the vast majority of cases illegal. It would be another short hop to the pics landing in the hands of pedos. No, if they decided to do that then they should be charged.

It quite clearly would. The US legal system doesn't operate on common sense.

Just like the fact that there have been all sorts of efforts to prevent teenagers from being charged with statutory rape has made it so that adults are no longer charged with it?

No. The problem is the legal system's bolloxed itself in this situation. If they'd ruled it was ok, the next creepy paedo to persuade a stupid kid to make & publish porn of itself, would be all but immune to persecution.

So yes, it's fucked up to bash a kid for something entirely innocent, but so's the alternative.

That said, I'm in no way defending the idiotic ruling. The legal system is there to persue justice, not to try making the best of a deficient system. If the system's deficient, it'll simply have to be altered. And that's not the job of courts.
The alternitve? how bout not punishing the kids and amending the law to not punish kids if there is no adult involved in any way shape or form