15-year-old girl facing child porn charges for sending nude picture of herself over the internet

[FLAprogressive]

http://www.cbs59.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=52756

CLEARFIELD, Pa. -- A 15-year-old girl from central Pennsylvania faces child pornography charges after police say she sent nude pictures of herself over the Internet.

Clearfield County District Attorney William Shaw says the girl has been charged as a juvenile with possessing, distributing and creating child pornography.

The girl is living with her mother. Authorities say the girl sent the pictures after communicating in June 2007 with a 27-year-old man over the MySpace networking Web site.

The practice has been called "sexting" for the prevalence of teens to transmit images via a cell phone.

Shaw says the man has also been charged with unlawful sexual activity. State police found the images on the man's computer.

*snip*

Roughly 20 percent of teens admit to participating in sexting, according to a nationwide survey by the National Campaign to Support Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy.

"This is a serious felony. They could be facing many years in prison," CBS News legal analyst Lisa Bloom said of the six Pennsylvania teenagers.

But, Bloom added, "What are we going to do, lock up 20 percent of America's teens?"

-------

More ridiculousness from America's overzealous prosecutors. The only person who should be going to jail (or should be charged with a crime) is the guy....not the victim.

This is getting crazy. 20 percent of our nation's teens would be labeled sex offenders and have their lives ruined thanks to moronic "one size fits all" laws.

[ThomWV]

1. Isn't it absurd?

Last month my son and I combined cell phone service for him, his lady, me and my wife. He and I split the bill for the 4 phones and its a lot cheaper than when each of us had separate accounts.

So I picked up 4 new phones when we did this and my son and his lady both got new numbers. Within a day my son's lady starts getting photographs sent to her from a (probably) teenage girl. The pictures were utterly explicit and this was hardly a child. Now I figured that all they had to do was hit the reply thingy and send the girl a message back telling here that someone new now had the number. You know, be nice about it but tell them that the picture was not going where they thought it was going. That's what they thought too and in fact it is what they did. However the pictures kept on coming. Even after sending several replies to tell the sender that the pictures were not going to their intended recipient and weren't much appreciated either. They never did stop and after a few more days we got her a different new phone number..

Amazing.

[Jackpine Radical]

3. And so by simply receiving the photos,

she becomes a sex offender.

[LisaL]

64. Yes, I believe whoever got those images could be charged.

I would hope she got them deleted immediately or she could be in possession of child pornography.

[Jackpine Radical]

73. I know of cases where people were busted after police found

DELETED illegal porn that they recovered by sending the disks in for professional data recovery.

[KakistocracyHater]

144. so nude images of one's self is illegal?

How many have pictures of 'baby's 1st bath', & pics of themselves as babies, this is madness. Prudes are crazymaking fools gunking up the legal system. Pics of herself-is this for real?

[theoldman]

2. In Europe no one would go to prison.

Other than a kick in the ass for being stupid, I do not think any of the teenagers should be punished. If an adult did not ask for the photos, they should not be punished either. The problem is in coming up with proof.

[Jackpine Radical]

4. They don't have to prove much to get a sex offense conviction these days.

5 y/o boy pinches 5 y/o girl on butt=========>sex offense.

[seabeyond]

7. so, teens are allowed to distribute child porn on net, but adults arent?

how does that make sense.

[ThomWV]

14. Well, I guess its just another one of those childish things one loses with youth ....

[seabeyond]

19. so YOU do advocate child porn, as long as it is a child distributing it? n/t

[Bjorn Against]

30. No one has advocated for child porn anywhere on this thread

To destroy a teenagers life by charging them with a felony for expressing their sexuality however is extreme. Like it or not by the time someone is fifteen they are sexual beings and many of them are going to express that sexuality in the same way an adult would. Don't get me wrong I don't like the fact that they would send these kinds of photos over the internet, and I certainly think it should be a crime to post explicit pictures of minors online but I also think we do need to look at things on a case by case basis. This is one girl who may have made a very bad decision, but she was not out to victimize anyone and she should not be treated like a criminal.

[seabeyond]

31. if kids are adult enough to live in the adult world of sex, then they are old enough to know it is

a crime to send child porn on the net.

these kids arent stupid

they know a crime

and they chose to do the crime cause they dont think they should be punished. like all other crimes they may do at the young teenage years

should she be tried as adult sex crime... no. it specifically says she will be charged as juvenile. i imagine the punishment will fit.

she should be treated as a criminal as much as the kid that distributes drugs.

[Bjorn Against]

48. You are using false comparisons...

It is illegal for both kids and adults to deal drugs, it is also illegal for both kids and adults to drive drunk. In the case of nude pictures however it is LEGAL for an adult to post pictures of themselves online. Child porn of course is illegal, but from the girls perspective this would not be child porn it would be her own expression of sexuality. She never intended this to go on some creepy site where people pay to see her pictures, she sent the picture to one single person who may have been way too old for her but that is a whole different issue (and an issue in which she would be considered the victim and he would be the perpetrator). The fact is she was doing this as an advance at one single person, not as an attempt to distribute child pornography across the internet. To destroy her life, humiliate her, and make her a criminal over this is taking things way too far.

[seabeyond]

50. it is illegal to distribute child porn. that simple. if these kids dont get it....

then maybe we adults should spell it out for them.

i have with my boys....

it is no different than being illegal to sell drugs, or illegal to drive drunk or illegal to distribute child porn

[Bjorn Against]

56. Read my post again, I already adressed those points.

This is not comparable to drug dealing, and this girl did not intend her picture to be considered as child porn.

[JackRiddler]

41. And what do you advocate? Imprisoning children?

How about just ruining their lives by dragging them into juvenile court?

Idiot.

[seabeyond]

45. how about the kids understanding it is a law, just like drug law, or drinking and driving law

no one has answered the simple question....

are you suggesting to make it practice that kids can put child porn on net, and adults cannot?

[Bjorn Against]

It is not just like a drug law or a drinking and driving law.

It is illegal for people of all ages to deal drugs or to drive drunk, it is legal however for adults to send nude pictures of themselves across the internet. You are comparing apples to oranges.

[seabeyond]

55. it is illegal for people of ALL ages to distribute child porn. this can not be said any simpler.

that is as basic, few words, bottom line as it can get. no different from drinking driving, no different than distributing drugs

[Bjorn Against]

58. As I have said three times now, you need to look at this from the girl's perspective.

From her perspective she would not think of something like this as child porn, you are looking at it from a completely different angle than she is. If you were a teenager you would probably think very differently about this.

[seabeyond]

60. law doesnt look at it from girls perspective. .... that is NOT what law is. i stole to feed family

i still stole. law isnt going to say, well from your perspective it was a positive good thing. ergo .... no law broken

[Bjorn Against]

65. So do you think a mother who takes pictures of their three year old in the bathtub is child porn?

Not all nude pictures are pornography, and the law is not real clear on exactly what pornography is. In this case I think it is absurd to accuse this girl of distributing child porn.

[Lyric]

76. If it involves pictures of only themselves?

What about teen masturbation? Shall we prosecute masturbating teens for statutory rape, too?

:eyes:

[seabeyond]

78. guns dont kill people, people kill people. i dont waste time on stupid. n/t

[madmom]

102. But ,according to you a teacher talking/teaching religion to a

5 year old in kindergarten in a public school we have to give the teacher some lee-way,even though it is against the law, because there may be extenuating circumstances.I just do not comprehend your way of thinking.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5043571

[Lyric]

133. So apparently the poster DOES waste time on stupid

as long as the stupid is her own.

Don't you just love hypocrisy?

[readmoreoften]

136. I am so sorry that you have children.

[seabeyond]

139. ah

that really is just wrong. you dont know anything about me or my children. what i give them. how they are loved.

that is just a mean thing to say.

if it were anything more than to just insult there would actually be a dialogue. my kids arent sad that i am their parent.

i suggest that children are capable, intelligent enough as teenagers to think about consequence and recognize repercussion of their action. actually be responsible and you think that is sad. what is sad is parents that have not given kids security, a foundation, connection, communication to allow them to be that capable person.

[Posteritatis]

17. Filing criminal charges on someone for actions commited "against" herself will always be absurd (nt)

[seabeyond]

20. saying a kid can put child porn on net, but adult cant is equally absurd. n/t

[NYC Liberal]

95. Why is that absurd? We make distinctions based on age all the time.

In many places, a minor can have sex with another minor. But a 40 year old cannot have sex with a minor. Is that absurd too?

[seabeyond]

97. because it is child porn, and the purpose is not to allow child porn on net, and that is putting

child porn on net.. otherwise, all the people that want the child porn only has to have a kid put the child porn on the net and then why have a law anyway?

we dont make a distinction between the crime. we make the distinction with the punishment.

[NYC Liberal]

100. "only has to have a kid put the child porn"

As long as it's of themselves, and they do so freely, what would be the problem? We can criminalize *possession* of sexual photos of minors for adults, to make sure that adults aren't forcing kids to send photos of themselves and everyone is in the clear.

Like I said - the difference between an adult sending photos of a minor and a minor sending photos of themselves, is the adult is sending someone else's photo whereas the minor is sending their own.

[tigereye]

105. the law really hasn't caught up with the cell-phone generation

seems more a case of really poor judgment on the girl's part...

I wish our society used common sense more frequently when it involves the behavior of minors... Too bad her mom didn't lecture her about the consequences of same.

[Thothmes]

111. A thoughtful response to what is basicaly

a stupid move by a young teenage girl. At times common sense does not usually show up on this forum.

[tigereye]

130. true...

:hi:

[seabeyond]

112. this is really my view

what i am seeing with youth is they are really being told this is the desired behavior of our girls. what is rewarded. parenting would be a good thing.

[tigereye]

129. yes my kid gets regular talks from me about what's safe to do regarding

stuff online, and what isn't.


I really think that kids aren't warned about the boundaries they need to have in this society and on the internet...

[MineralMan]

33. Oh, please....

15 year old girls have been torturing 16 year old boys by showing them what they cannot have since humans first walked the earth.

Perhaps you have forgotten your youth.

[readmoreoften]

137. It's her own body. Someone doesn't have the right to distribute images of their own body?

If she looks at herself naked in the mirror, is that also an offense?

[Booster]

5. I think some of the blame should be directed at MySpace.

You can't tell me that they can't police what goes over their website. The first time one of these websites is shut down, this shit will stop.

[Posteritatis]

18. LOL, yeah right (nt)

[BlooInBloo]

6. Kids are gonna sex it up. There's not even anything particularly wrong with it....

The laws need to reflect that.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. Teenagers are interested in sex???? Say it ain't so!!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[FLAprogressive]

9. I think this is part of the conservative movement to punish teens for having sex.....

[seabeyond]

11. du FLIPS with distribution of child porn. now, it is a child distributing child porn.

yet we aim it at the conservatives to stop sex.

kids do drugs too. do they get to distribute it and adults arent allowed?

of course not

if a kid is distributing child porn, it is still child porn

should have punishment all unto itself and not adult punishment, but it is still distribution of child porn

[FLAprogressive]

12. There's a HUGE difference between a creepy old man distributing pictures of innocent children

and an innocent teenager distributing a picture of herself.

[seabeyond]

16. she isnt innocent, lol and she has definition of child porn and is distributing it

kids should learn they will get ass in trouble for this. cannot say.... ONLY creepy old men cant distribute child porn, but ok for others.

[MineralMan]

38. For pete's sake...

In 1961, I was 16 years old. I had a 15-year-old girlfriend. She and another friend of hers, who was dating one of my best friends, got together with a polaroid camera and took pictures of each other naked. Me and my friend got those pictures. We were not displeased.

When the girl and I broke up, I burned the photo.

Lighten up, please, on kids flaunting their naughty bits to each other.

[seabeyond]

40. again, a child can put child porn on net, an adult cannot put child porn on net.

is that what you are saying?

really

just one clear answer from anyone. are we saying a child is allowed to distribute child porn, and an adult is not allowed to distribute child porn.

not a tough one.

[MineralMan]

49. Here's what I think:

Teenagers are sexual beings. Choosing to send a nude photo to someone is not child pornography if done voluntarily by the person depicted in the photo. We don't throw teenagers in jail for having sex with each other, do we? Certainly nudity is involved in that activity.

Every crime involved intent as well as action. The intent of this texting is to display onesself to a potential sex partner, not to exploit onesself for money.

Without the intent, there is no crime. The child pornography laws are designed to prevent the exploitation of children by adults. The crime requires intent.

"See my boobies, Tommy?" It's a different thing, altogether.

[seabeyond]

54. some stranger, 27 to her 15, isnt exploitation? but still the simplicity of it is, child porn distr

is illegal. she distributed child porn

you cushion and coddle the explaination but the eyes of the law this is clear, simple and easy

want a law to address teens doing it to be in juvenile system, fine... maybe they do. i have not gotten any answers on another thread. but this is specifically stating will be charged as juvenile so i assume it will not be handled like an adult case

[MineralMan]

61. OK, whatever you say...

May I be excused, now?

[NYC Liberal]

98. I'll say it: YES.

A minor should not be punished for sending photos of themselves to another person so long as they make the choice to do so.

The reason adults cannot do the same is because they are not sending photos of THEMSELVES! They're sending photos of other people. Nobody should be punished for sending photos of themselves.

[readmoreoften]

138. It's not "PORN" it's a picture of herself.

If she put a picture of herself wearing seductive makeup and a low-cut blouse is that really any different?

[Doc_Technical]

10. How can one person be both

the perpetrator and the victim?

[seabeyond]

13. because she is putting child porn on the net and that is illegal to distribute child porn

this isnt hard. why are so many people having a tough time with this concept is my question. we cannot say kids can distribute child porn and adults cannot. that is stupid.

[retread]

32. It is "child" porn because she is a child and they are pictures of herself. n/t

[seabeyond]

35. yes. it is child porn. and???? n/t

[alittlelark]

147. She is a CHILD. She does things that are childish.

In this day and age this is not an abnormal childish behavior.

That being said - If my daughter (14 yrs old) did it she would be relegated to a Swiss nunnery until her 18th birthday.

[seabeyond]

148. i have a 14 yr old too

we say she is a child. in a year she gets a license, heavy responsibility. we dont say no to the kids with sex, cause i personally feel it is their decision, but we do drill it into their head that when they make that decision they do it in a very adult manner of responsibility and use a condom.

here you say she is a child and not able to be responsible.

yet on the other hand we are handing them responsibilities with much greater consequences.

i dont buy it.

[alittlelark]

149. Childrens brains are different than adult brains.

Those between the ages of 12 and 18 or so are also soaked with hormonal influences we can barely remember.

They are NOT adults.

I question whether any should be allowed to drive w/o a SERIOUS test (mine will get one).

They mature in body and are deficient in maturity.



That is why the field of 'Child Psychology' came about - It recognizes that these CHILDREN are different from ADULTS.

[seabeyond]

151. well

no shit. seeing how both you and i have 14 yr olds, i think you could assume i know this. now....

are you telling me that your daughter could not figure this out, cause i know my sons are able to figure this out. really not a tough one for them

this girl sends a picture to a 27 yr old stranger. you arent bothered that she would even be talking to a 27 yr old stranger, let alone that this 27 yr old convinces her to send a picture and even worse, that she came up on it all on her own.

that a parent hasnt instilled in this girl at 15 that it isnt appropriate for her to put a picture on myspace? none of these things send up flags for you?

i am well aware of child psychology. i am also aware that a lot of parents arent doing their job. i am also aware a lot of bullshit is happening in our schools because a lot of parents arent doing their job. the parents arent doing their job, who is left to do it?

[alittlelark]

152. I know that 2 of my daughters friends (from Jr high)

Could have easily done this. Both were 'abandoned' by their fathers for younger sexy women. They both lived with their mothers in apts. Their fathers and the 'replacements' got the house. Both see their daughters monthly +. One sold the house and moved to Santa Fe. The other is still here.


Both girls are overtly sexual.

My daughter has not hung with them for a few years - they hang with a different crowd.


The funny thing - this is one of the wealthiest communities in the country - we are not immune.

[seabeyond]

155. yes

this is what it is about. and a nation that says, the value, the reward, the acceptance, the love comes in strippin down.... then you are valued. so a 15 yr old girl puts her naked picture on myspace for a 27 yr old she does not know.

there are rich kids too, that dont have parents taking care of them.

[alittlelark]

158. And is is soooo sad.

I've spent the last 10 or so minutes thinking about Natasha and Beth... I've known them since elementary school.

The adultery and divorces changed them in substantive ways.

One started dying her hair blonde (4th grade). Her mother was too messed up from the divorce to deal w/ her. She wears way too much eye liner - but she is such a nice kid, I talk to her sometimes while waiting to pick up my daughter.

Beth lost her virginity in 6th grade to a COMPLETE loser 7th grader. Everyone at the school knew about it and made fun of her, but she just acted like it was all cool.... She is the one I am most worried about. Her mother is about 80 lbs overweight and spends her time shopping. The $$$ is gonna run out soon (I'm assuming).

[alittlelark]

160. And that fact is very sad... I cannot blame the girls that do it.

As I said I know 2 likely candidates.

The world is much different than it was when we were kids.

[seabeyond]

156. but you know

i really have listened to the posters on here. and i have really put time in reflecting and thinking about this. and i still cannot in my mind say...

that a child can put naked pictures on the net but an older person cannot put naked pictures of a child on the net.

we are talking law. and there is an inconsistency with that.

i also dont think any of the kids will get jail time. i know people see my posts and think i am thinking that, cause they are assuming the kids will. i do not see that they would get any jail time with that and if so then there is something really wrong. others are assuming they will. i am assuming they wont.

[yodermon]

71. Well, what do *you* think should happen to her?

from the article:
"This is a serious felony. They could be facing many years in prison," CBS News legal analyst Lisa Bloom said of the six Pennsylvania teenagers."

DO you *really* think she should be locked up for fucking *FELONY CHILD PORN*?? Her life will be ruined now, for simply making a typical teenage mistake. If many more of these cases occur, the law should be changed.

To answer the question you are asking everyone ad naseaum on this thread:

No, if a minor sends a naked picture of him/herself over the internet, they should not be charged with distribution of child porn. Go ahead, call me a defender of child pornography now. :eyes:

If an adult coerces a kid into sending the picture, then the adult is culpable and should be charged. Duh.

People like you have no desire to exercise actual judgment in these matters. Everything's nicely black & white, and your lovely zero-tolerance policies make everything oh-so-simple. Can I call you Javert?

[seabeyond]

74. good on you bringing it to personal attack and telling me who i am

i have not expressed myself on child porn, the repercussions for this, merely the inconsistency that is being suggested here.

you are the first to even ask the simple question, what punishment do i think. as far as i have seen we had not even gotten to that point, but you also throw out the personal attack with no information or what my thought may even be on this

i think we need to educate our children this is child porn and against the law
i think we need to understand they are kids and try to approach it a couple ways....

through the parents, thru the schools and thru the juvenile system with a warning, lecture and slap on the wrist if need be... it is still a crime and it is still child porn

and a society that doesnt seem to say, .... ah well that our kids not only 15 but younger are handing out their naked picture to whomever. where the hell is the parenting personal responsibility even in their sexuality and is this the route we chose to go....

not a single person had a thing to say about this 15 yr old sending her naked picture to some strange 27 yr old. is this now the accepted norm for our youth?

not to mention educating kids that colleges and companies are entering kids names in computers to decide their very future on behavior they have done on the net.

[dustbunnie]

75. What you say makes absolute sense.

Prison sentences are silly... you don't prosecute a 15-year-old for willingly participating in a porn flick, or for having sex with an older partner. It isn't brilliant to prosecute a kid with the intent of longterm incarceration for this sort of thing either. But they should be figuratively flogged about the head and shoulders by parents, teachers, etc, and grounded till the next millennium.

Btw I did pick up on the fact that this young girl was sending this out to a strange 27-year-old, (lots of people would be outraged if this was about actual sex) who for all intents and purposes may have a whole network of yummy 40-year-old friends who LOVE pics of young naked girls. It isn't the same as handing out one physical photograph to your 16-year-old boyfriend, although this isn't always a great idea either. It certainly isn't the same as when an adult chooses to do so.

It's terrible that young girls are now being taught that to be popular, be accepted into certain groups, they now have to provide nude pics of themselves through technology such as the internet or cell phones, where their naked bodies can be disseminated to a large group of people. You'd think we'd have progressed as a society. And you're right. It can reflect really badly on potential future employment or even personal relationship.

[readmoreoften]

140. And you think giving her a record in juvenile court will HELP her get into college?

Goodness gracious.

[Occam Bandage]

15. She's the perpetrator. The victims are the children who

will end up being further exploited by the child-porn industry that she has unwittingly backed and expanded.

[FLAprogressive]

21. lol I think I've heard it all now.

"The victims are the children who will end up being further exploited by the child-porn industry that she has unwittingly backed and expanded."

so because this one girl sends a picture of herself....other children will now be victimized because of this one girl singlehandedly backing and expanding the child porn industry!

:rofl:

[Occam Bandage]

23. Yes. Laws do not take the actual real-world impact of the crime into account.

A murder is still a murder even if nobody liked the guy and everybody's much happier now that he's dead. A robbery is still a robbery even if the victim had billions in the bank and the thief used every cent to buy food and medicine for the poor.

They only take the likely impact of this type of behavior. An underage girl who photographs herself naked and posts it on the internet has, in general, caused the same result as anyone else who has distributed child pornography, being the sustainment of the exploitative child pornography culture.

[Bjorn Against]

67. So you are comparing what she did to murder and robbery?

Wow, just wow. For your information she wasn't posting pictures of herself all over the internet, she sent pictures to one single solitary person. If you think that is comparable to murder and robbery then I don't know what to tell you. Maybe you should learn about logic like you were telling everyone else they should do yesterday.

[Occam Bandage]

83. Only insofar as that all are crimes for which there are clear definitions,

and in which the particulars of the case are not part of the definition. It doesn't matter that she wasn't posting pictures of herself "all over the internet," because the law does not look into specifics like that. What matters is that she has electronically distributed child pornography (meaning she has transferred a pornographic image of a minor to a person or persons who are able to effectively control the use of that image). It doesn't matter that she only gave it to one person, because nobody has any idea how many people that one person gave the picture to. For all anybody knows, he posted it on 4chan and now it's in the hard drives of thousands of people. I mean, If you think people never post naked pictures of girls they know online, you're naive.

There is not an exemption for girls taking pictures of themselves because the average effect of a girl distributing a picture of herself and a 45-year-old man distributing a picture of a kid he found elsewhere on the internet is the exact same. She will be treated more leniently, as would any juvenile tried as a juvenile, but she has broken a law and there is a solid reason that law exists.

[dustbunnie]

24. It isn't just 'one' girl doing this.

And as others have stated, it does have a societal effect. Once those pics are out there, they can end up belonging to anybody capable of downloading them. And eventually, these end up on the hard drives of creepy old men. Sounds like a great deal for pedophiles. Long prison sentences are ludicrous, but children shouldn't be sending nude pics of themselves out there. I'm sure if this was a thread about a 27-year-old having sex with a 15-year-old, even if he/she initiated it, the reaction would be quite different.

[seabeyond]

25. weird, as long as it is a teen, having sex inolved with porn, du is thrilled.....

be it put out in any other way people would be in an uproar.

kid distributes drugs doesnt get in trouble adult does...
drinks and drives doesnt get in trouble, adult does
du would flip

but as long as it is a naked picture of a GIRL.... go for it. right on track. regardless if she is being preyed on by a creepy 27 yr old. none of it matter, just got a naked girl and truly, that seems to be the most important thing for so many duers.

[depakid]

29. Thrilled is probably not the word

More like dumbfounded that opinions like the one's you've expresed are taken seriously.

[seabeyond]

34. putting child porn on the net is a crime should not be taken seriously? n/t

[depakid]

36. First- definitions

I don't- and I doubt many other reasonable people consider a teenager sending naked pictures to be child porn.

Please.

Only reactionaries think things like that.

[seabeyond]

39. she is legally considered child. she sends a naked picture on the net.

what part is not legally considered child porn.

[depakid]

42. Whatever. Go arrest grandmas for sending pictures of their naked grandkids in the bathtub

or at the beach.

Same thing- same process.

Reductio ad absurdum.

[seabeyond]

47. so... you are saying it is ok for children to distribute child porn and adults cannot

distribute child porn

[depakid]

53. I'm saying you're beyond seeing reason

[seabeyond]

59. i am? child porn is distributed but ok cause a kid did it, but illegal cause an adult

does it and i am beyond reason......

[depakid]

82. How about being blunt

You are behaving every bit as much like an adolscent as those you decry and wish to prosecute.

[seabeyond]

87. am i not allowed to be blunt? you prefer obtuse? and that makes me adolescent?

you post makes no sense.

[depakid]

92. "what makes me adolescent"

Immature thoughts and emotions.

[Skittles]

135. hey depkid

you want I should kick your ass and teach you how to put asshats on IGNORE? I will you know.

[readmoreoften]

141. Well, you're talking to a complete reactionary so, don't be shocked if she doesn't relent.

[The Straight Story]

68. 'creepy old men'? You mean creepy old women don't like to look as well?

:)

[dustbunnie]

69. Bwahaha... I'm sure just as much. Young women like to look too.

I realized after I wrote it how exclusionary that was, but did qualify it later by saying he/she. :)

[dustbunnie]

22. Drunk driver who kills self and passenger after flying the car into a tree -

might be another example of such. It is possible.

[Orrex]

57. I don't think that's a good example

Because in that case the driver is also killing the passenger. A more precise example would be if the driver seriously injured himself; would he be criminally charged for the injury as well as for driving while drunk?

[dustbunnie]

66. Okay!

:D You have a point. I was thinking of the example within the context of this thread and spreading naked joy. The girls are helping to promote child porn, while at the same time endangering other girls through peer pressure. Girls are harmed by this practice, since once something like that is out there, it can follow you wherever you go.

(I'm no prudella btw. I believe every adult who wants to get naked for the camera should jump right in. But there's a reason why 15-year-olds can't participate in a nude photo shoot, or hand out pictures of themselves on a street corner. It's against the law. Cell phones have made it possible for one innocent pic to be mass distributed. It's no different than the other two scenarios.)

[Orrex]

96. Oh, I have no problem with your view on the underlying subject

In fact, I think we're on the same page. I just wanted to quibble about the example! :hi:

[dustbunnie]

104. Ooops... this is gonna be a long night.

Didn't see this post when I re-replied to your last one. :hi:

[dustbunnie]

103. I take it back. I knew there was a reason your analogy bothered me.

He wouldn't be charged for the injury as that would represent his "victimhood." He WOULD be charged for the drunk driving so my example still holds, I think. He is both victim - injury, and perpetrator - driving drunk.

[depakid]

26. Yet another of those "through the looking glass" stories

America has truly become theater of the absurd.

[seabeyond]

37. i dont get this. so, a child can distribute child porn and adult cannot?

simple question.

why wouldnt all those wanting to distribute child porn just get the kids to do it.

[depakid]

51. Apparently you don't get it

The girl should have a talking to- which is what would happen with responsible parents in a sane society.

You don't bring teens up on charges. This case is something you'd find in a Kafka story. Or Lewis Carroll.

WTF is going on in Pennsylvania?

Seems to me, this sort of bizarre "reasoning" is what allowed the judges (and prosecutors and clerks and administrators, et al) to do this:

She had done a -- I think a MySpace parody … of an assistant principal, a paragraph or two, with internet humor of an adolescent variety, finishing by saying, "I hope that Mrs. Smith" -- or Jones -- "has a sense of humor." It turned out that the assistant principal didn't, we gather, at least, complained to the police, who filed a harassment petition against Hillary. This is the kind of case, like Kurt's and like Jamie's, that never should have been in court in the first place, let alone get to a trial. Juvenile court is not designed for this kind of adolescent misbehavior. The cases should have been diverted entirely. Instead, Hillary and Kurt and Jamie and thousands of others were used by the court for profit, while many people over many years stood by watching.

Excerpted from How Two Former PA Judges Got Millions in Kickbacks to Send Juveniles to Private Prisons

http://www.alternet.org/rights/127461/amy_goodman:_how_two_former_pa_judges_got_millions_in_kickbacks_to_send_juveniles_to_private_prisons/

[varelse]

108. Yours is the first post to give a hint at a possible explanation

for an otherwise totally inexplicable and ridiculous act. No, I'm not talking about the girl who sent photos of herself to a friend, using a cellphone, which she undoubtedly thought of as a private interaction, not a "posting of porn on the internets". I'm referring to the act of charging the child with a serious felony for what is assuredly an understandable (and easily correctible) mistake.

[FreakinDJ]

27. Good for the Goose - Good for the Gander

[Silent3]

28. I hope the girl sends a few pictures of herself the prosecution...

...and the police and see how quickly they charge themselves with possession. Zero tolerance, ya know.

[seabeyond]

44. so now we suggest our girls strip down and use porn to unethically entrap others

or is this just a joke, or females so insignificant that using them is just a common thought amongst us adult today.

[Silent3]

52. It's a joke, but only half so...

...because it simply shouldn't be possible for something like that to get someone in trouble, and mere possession of a thing shouldn't be a crime.

I'm also against the idea of any image whatsoever being illegal. The idea that the nude body of a 15 y/o girl is such a terrible thing that requires people being tossed into jail and having their lives ruined with the Scarlet Letter "SEX CRIMINAL", including the girl herself, is patently absurd.

Better take the girl's mirrors away, lest she be creating illegal porn whenever she steps in front of one.

[seabeyond]

63. so you do advocate that child porn not be illegal. at least you are consistent out of

all the others on this board.

[Silent3]

70. I don't expect very many people to accept freedom of expression to the degree...

...that I do, but even given that, I think I could find a fair number of people to agree that:

Simple human nudity shouldn't be considered illegal.

Mere possession of anything, not just picture, but anything, shouldn't be a crime. Whether possession is knowing or unknowing, with the burden of proof on the prosecution, should always be a factor, otherwise there's too much potential for abuse of such laws by people, including the police themselves, who can cause someone to "possess" something in order to get them in trouble. There's also abuse from the random and inconsistent prosecution of possession cases. Can you imagine what would happen if everyone who has ever "possessed" drugs were prosecuted?

Sending images of one's very own self shouldn't ever count as "distribution".

Edit... and one more thing: There are far, far more important things for our police to be working on, and far better uses of our tax dollars than pursuing nonsense like this through the court system. Would you rather have $100,000 of your town's budget be spent on prosecuting a case like this, or on funding a homeless shelter?

[JackRiddler]

43. Law enforcement has been really rough on the billionaire pirates lately, hasn't it?

[L0oniX]

46. 15 yo girl strips naked on the beach while 20+ yo men watch ....

and the difference is? ...the penalty!

[LisaL]

62. If an underaged person sends the image of herself, unsolicited, to someone, whoever

receives the image could be charged with possession of child pornography, I believe.
Even if whoever got the images has not asked for any images to be send to him or her.

[Silent3]

72. Even if you deleted such an image as soon as you got it...

...a "deleted" image is typically still on your hard drive after you supposedly "delete" it, and often remains there for quite some time, merely being marked as available free space. People have been prosecuted for such lingering traces of old files -- that counts as "possession" too.

[Warren DeMontague]

77. Why don't we just simplify the whole thing and lock EVERYONE up, pre-emptively.

If you can PROVE that you're not going to do anything naughty with your nasty bits, you're not going to smoke any evil, forbidden plants, you're going to be a good corporate consumer and go to a state-approved house of worship regularly, then maybe we'll let you out.

[seabeyond]

79. or... why dont we just have no laws. n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

80. Teenagers have sex. Teenagers have always had sex. Now we have technology where teenagers can

easily take pictures of themselves and send them to others. It goes without saying that some teens, since teens aren't exactly known for good judgment, are going to take nude pictures of themselves.. the minute we started adding photo capability to cell phones, you could have predicted this would happen.

So we face some choices:

Either we can

a) accept that the new technology and new situation requires us to figure out a way to legally distinguish between adult individuals and illegal industries that exploit and profit off of kids and teenagers using new technology while doing what they've always done, or

b) adopt a "fuck 'em, lock 'em up" strategy, because, hell, that's EASIER than acknowledging that we're in a new, 21st century situation here that requires an ability to distinguish between exploitation and teenage experimentation.

Let me ask you- do you honestly believe that this 15 year old girl did anything that deserves a felony conviction and a multi-year prison sentence? Honestly? Do you really think society will be better served by locking these kids up & throwing away the key? Really? Because in my book, "protecting the children" INCLUDES protecting them from misguided, draconian law enforcement actions that WILL fuck up their lives far worse than having a nude picture of themselves on someone else's cell phone. The logic here is akin to that of drug war poo-bahs who say "the danger to you from smoking pot is so grave, we're going to give you 10 years in prison to save you from yourself." Well, frankly, 10 years in prison is a lot worse for people than smoking a joint.

And again, it would be nice if some of this "save the children!" rage were directed at organizations who have deliberately protected, aided and abetted those who we know HAVE harmed kids, like -cough- the Vatican. We've got squads of cops policing kids' cell phones- why is the Pope still a free man? :shrug:

[seabeyond]

81. i have yet to see punishment of these kids, though i hear the THREAT of

punishment. i am not seeing kids going to jail for life and key thrown away and ending up on sex rolls, nor are you. so i am not going to insist it is happening, gonna happen until it does happen.

i have never suggested, implied, or stated that these kids do any jail time at all.

i do not think that we are limited to two choices. i think it is absurd to suggest that children that put nude pictures on the net are exempt from child porn. honestly... that does not make any kind of sense to me. the net is all. if we are trying to stop child porn from being on the net and say to them, oh.... unless you all want to put your picture up, then that is ok, makes no sense. if there is a law against it.... well then, the law is there, against it.

i think the child has to face repercussion. i think we adults need to teach them the law and dont be stupid. i think we have to teach them personal responsibility even when it comes to sexuality. we expect them to use a condom, as silly and brainless as we seem to give our teens, or there are major consequernces. we are not saying, NO sex, we are saying be responsible. we can give it to them for this, but NOT nude pictures on net cause they are after all only kids.

what if this 27 yr old stranger is getting these photos from many children and using them in child porn. do we know ANYTHING about the situation. a 27 yr old on the net has her picture. people arent bothered? this is the norm for our youth? we want nothing more from our kids?

colleges and companies are putting int he kids name in google to see what choices they are making in their life. kids also have to be educated to think this thru

so no.... it is not just either this, or that.

[Warren DeMontague]

90. It seems to me like Law Enforcement is treating these as serious crimes. Here's another point:

First off, I haven't seen anyone arguing that we do away with all laws pertaining to exploitation of kids. (I know I keep harping on this, but I would like to see Institutions that have a proven track record of conspiring to harm kids treated as the criminal enterprises they are, cough, the Vatican, cough) But it's worth mentioning that the obstensible point of said laws is to punish the perpetrator and protect the victim. Right? Except in these cases, the perpetrator and the victim are THE SAME PERSON.

It's like charging someone with raping themselves. If the law tried to do that, it would be ridiculous, right?

So why not say that, yes, we need to address the misuse of images wherever the source, but we're not going to prosecute people under 18 for exploiting themselves. Maybe this is a case where educators and social workers could address the issue better than cops and judges.

Sure, we may tell kids to use a condom, but sometimes they don't. That doesn't mean they go to jail, does it? It doesn't even mean they are a criminal.

The law makes a distinction (or should make) between adults having sex with people under 18 and people under 18 having sex with each other. I think the law can figure out a way to extrapolate a similar response to this sort of situation, as well. And frankly, I suspect it will have to, because these scary new technologies aren't going away, and I'd be surprised if any of our state budgets can handle the law enforcement costs associated with policing every teenager who has a cell phone camera (particularly not when we've simultaneously got 60 million dangerous pot smoking criminals to stay on top of. :eyes:)

[seabeyond]

93. go after vatican, i dont care. wrong is wrong to me and they should be prosecuted.

you cant rape self cause you have to give self consent, ergo it isnt rape.

the reason i think the option has to be available for the courts is because too many parents are not addressing this issue and it is still putting something illegal on the net. and too many kids are not going to think twice about it but they may if going to juvenile court is a threat.

the point on condom is not jail time. the point is, if we feel they are responsible enough to have sex, ie condom and the risk that holds then surely we can place the same demand on them that they understand this is a law, no child porn on net, dont be stupid and put picture on net or your ass is in trouble.

[Warren DeMontague]

99. Do you have a cell phone that can take pictures? I don't know anyone who doesn't, at this point.

It takes about 3 minutes to take a picture and text message it to someone else, tops. How many parents don't let their teenagers out of sight for more than 3 minutes a day? You gonna go with them into the bathroom?

Unless I'm mistaken, this wasn't "the net"- this was a kid text messaging the picture to someone else. That doesn't even require "the net".

I don't think this has anything to do with "parents not addressing this issue". I think, again, this is a new situation and a new technology and trying to slap the old responses on it is a waste of time.

As for the "raping oneself" question: 'you cant rape self cause you have to give self consent, ergo it isnt rape.' ... you can get yourself drunk, can't you? Couldn't you get yourself so drunk you couldn't give yourself consent?

Actually, I don't think it has to do with 'consent' so much as it has to do with it being YOUR body, and you can't victimize yourself.

[seabeyond]

116. get self drunk....

that was clever. wink. yup, got me. lol.

i saw myspace. i thought she put it on myspace. but i do see it on a much lesser issue from phone. the problem they are having with that is kids are doing in school. very young kids. and going into locker room and sharing with friends, and not friends and thru out school, leaving person who sent picture in pure embarrassment. you would think the kids wouldnt trust. maybe after a time or two of humiliation they will learn. but all that i do not see as the same as it being on the net.

i didnt finish responding, lol. as far as parent. i do think it is connection with child and what has been taught over the years. i also think it has to do with child and goals instilled ect....

i guess it depends what the porn law intent was. in listening to yawl, if the porn law is not to keep child porn of the net, but keep there from being victims of child porn. then i get that

[dustbunnie]

117. No, you are right. She did send it over the internet. People are confusing 2 parts of the article.

[seabeyond]

118. aughhhhh.... lol lol. then i have a problem with the net part. UNLESS, child porn law intent

is ... not to keep child porn off net. maybe they dont give a shit if child porn is on the net. but if the intent of the porn law is to protect victim of child porn.

i dont know the intent of law nor society.... people seem to really really really want to have their naked picture of our youth on net.

[Warren DeMontague]

150. It'd be nice if we could have a rational discussion about this without the unwarranted cheap shots.

There have been several stories about similar topics in recent weeks; in Newsweek or Time, last week or the week before, there was an OP ED page dealing precisely with this, and the absurdity of charging teens who send pictures of themselves over cell phones with felonies and the like.

It's entirely possible I'm the one getting the stories confused. However, there is a giant chasm between thinking this 15 yr. old girl who took pictures of herself should not be sent to prison for many years, and "really really really" wanting "naked picture of our youth on net." You honestly think that the folks in this thread question the wisdom of prosecuting this girl for taking pictures of herself simply because they're trolling the internet for pictures of HS students taken on cell phones? Really?

No, really? That's what you think?

Really?

(Better call Newsweek, too-- apparently one of their legal experts "seems to really really really want to have their naked picture of our youth on net." As does the legal analyst at CBS, since both have issues with the way these cases are being handled.)


...


If not, you're being disingenuous to score cheap points in an argument.

If so, that's pretty offensive.

[seabeyond]

157. i would like to see how the courts are going to do this. they will be in juvenile crt

and appropraite place. i dont think they will get time. at all. if so you can come back and raz my ass..... and i will shamefully hang head and say i was wrong

[Warren DeMontague]

159. Fair 'nuf.

Peace.

[Withywindle]

126. Teens can also statutorily rape themselves.

After all, if they can't legally consent to sex because they're underage, then all masturbation by minors is rape.


Wow. EVERYONE IN THE WORLD should be in prison.


Maybe we ARE. *cue Twilight Zone music.* Red pill or blue pill?


:hide:

[Posteritatis]

124. What do you think criminal charges are?

I understand that you think this kid should end up jailed and banned from living anywhere than under a bridge outside of the town limits - that is, after all, what The Law(tm) says should happen - but I'm surprised that you're being obtuse enough to seriously think that an arrest and life-destroying charges is somehow not punishment.

[seabeyond]

127. find out what their punishment is going to be then we will discuss

no, i do not think they will be jailed nor banned from living in the sommunity and living under a bridge. when the day comes let me know.

[GliderGuider]

84. Have you ever heard of mens rea?

Mens rea

In criminal law, mens rea – the Latin term for "guilty mind"<1> – is usually one of the necessary elements of a crime. The standard common law test of criminal liability is usually expressed in the Latin phrase, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means that "the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty". Thus, in jurisdictions with due process, there must be an actus reus accompanied by some level of mens rea to constitute the crime with which the defendant is charged (see the technical requirement of concurrence). The Criminal Law does not usually apply to a person who has acted with the absence of mental fault; this is a general rule.

I would suggest that there's a serious question whether mens rea existed in this case. Also, I have yet to hear anyone say that the picture in question was pornographic. It was apparently just a nude photo.

[Occam Bandage]

86. I think it's pretty clear that she intended to distribute a pornographic image of a child, yes.

I also highly doubt the photo was intended to have wholly artistic or medical merit; it's not quite a believable argument that she sent a naked picture of herself to a man she was in social communication with and not intend for the photo to have any erotic value.

[seabeyond]

89. and that will be the prosecuters. and the 27 yr old.... his ass is in trouble regardless. n/t

[seabeyond]

88. then this may be the lawyers out. thanks. n/t

[readmoreoften]

143. If there were no laws, you wouldn't have the faintest idea of how to behave would you?

If it doesn't involve punishment, you're not happy.

[seabeyond]

146. you are wrong. my son is hitting 14 yrs. he will be making decisions with a teenage brain

that will and could effect the rest of his life. you are damn straight i am going to give it to my kid straight on choices he makes while he is out playing with having very real consequences.

you appear to see that as bad parenting. i dont. a disagreement between you and i.

i told kids the first time this came up a month ago and i had never thought of it before. kids are getting in legal trouble for it. dont do it. against the law. child porn. could effect your future and colleges are checking to see what you put on the net.

be aware

that is what a parent does.

[MrScorpio]

85. In my day, it was all heavy petting and oral sex

Today's kids are so freaking impersonal

[GOPBasher]

91. I don't get it. I thought the purpose of child pornography laws were to protect the child.

I don't get why they would punish the child herself. Now the adult who was viewing them, HE should be punished.

[Monk06]

94. If this keeps up within ten yrers the majority of US citizens will be convicted felons and be denied

the right to vote. All you have to do
smoke a joint and have sex with your
17 yo girlfriend and your life is ruined.

[Waiting For Everyman]

101. I think the girl owns her own image and is responsible for her own privacy.

And as long as she did not sell them, there should be no offense. However if someone else receives them and distributes them as pornography (which would presumably be for profit), that is a different matter.

I too, fail to see how there can be an offense against oneself. For that reason too, I think drug laws for adults are absurd, and all victimless crimes. We have bigger law enforcement fish to fry than that, which are going ignored.

[ZombieHorde]

106. If a 15 yo willingly has sex with an adult, should the 15 yo be charged with statutory rape?

"What are we going to do, lock up 20 percent of America's teens?"

Our for-profit-prison system would love this. An army of young energetic workers with little to no rights.

[TK421]

107. I was reading the article, and when I saw MySpace that was quite enough for me

nothing but an internet meat-market, that fucking site. I don't even go on there anymore because all I get are invites to XXX web-cams and various spam shit. I'm surprised MySpace is still in business, and people still use it. Oh...their site sucks BTW...every page loads like molasses with those fuckers and they STILL haven't fixed some of their problems with their shitty inbox

[pierre790]

109. You All Missed The Point

This is just more evidence of what a terrorist police state this country is.The crime is serious enough but now you have law enforcement scum that intentionally over react.

I can't wait til I get the hell out of this shit hole country.

You like it,fucking keep it.

[kath]

110. So NUDITY (or even semi-nudity) = PORN??!?!

What. The. Fuck.

America's Puritanical streak run amok.

[Occam Bandage]

134. How about this:

You download as many pictures of naked children as you can. Put them all on a laptop. Then go to any other Western country, and open your laptop in public (say, in the airport) and begin viewing the photos full-screen.

Then count the seconds before you are under arrest for possession of child pornography.

[Eyerish]

113. This is so sad...

For many different reasons. This girl...a child by most definitions, was willing to give an intimate part of herself away to someone she'd never even met. When did we stop teaching children to have respect for their bodies? Sometimes I think this whole, "Well 15 year-old's are going to be 15 year-old's" line of logic is nothing but a cop-out for not taking responsibility in what our kids are doing. Something is radically broke with our current generation of tweens & teens and it doesn't feel like anyone is willing to step up to the plate and do something to fix it.

So if this young girl took this picture and sat out on the corner and distributed copies of it to anyone walking by, would she still not be distributing child-porn?? This 27-year old could of easily (and probably did) distribute this photo to any freak who wanted it. I think we are getting hung up on the method and not the reason behind it...

On edit...let's not kid ourselves here. There is a big difference between taking a bathtub pic of your kid and sending a photo of yourself to someone you are interested in. The mere intent of a picture like that is meant to be sexual...why else would someone send a photo if not for that??

[seabeyond]

114. i keep trying to wrap my mind around what the majority are saying here and i cannot

maybe a little if it is not the actual child porn we have issue with, but creating a victim with the child porn.

but this is what gets me. this girl sends a picture to a stranger, male, 27.... that she meets on my space. what is that? is this the norm we now accept for our youth?

[Celeborn Skywalker]

115. That's bullshit.

Older generations always think younger people are "broken". There is nothing new under the sun. The only difference is they are sending it over a phone instead of mailing a polaroid.

[Eyerish]

120. You have your opinion and I have mine...

thank you for sharing yours. If the implication is that I'm older I'm not, I'm 31. I just was instilled with a deep respect for my body and I don't see that type of thing in our younger generation of girls. I'm not a prude by any means and if this was a 18 year old young woman I wouldn't have an issue with it at all. But it was a 15 year old girl who, for whatever reason was inclined to send a nude picture of herself over a phone. I don't think she should be imprisoned, but I do think she needs to understand that this isn't just something that you do at that age. There are consequences to your actions.

All I said is that there is something broken with that certain age group. By "broken" I meant that there is a lack of communication, education about life and basic respect for themselves and others. They seem to have a disconnect from reality that I think no other group of kids has ever had.

[readmoreoften]

145. I agree with your opinion.

Not the other opinion.

[BlooInBloo]

119. Fuck all those "goddamn slut" opinions.

[Eyerish]

121. I never called her a slut...

I think she was an ill-advised 15 year old girl who wanted the 27-year old guy to like her and did what she though he'd like.

[BlooInBloo]

122. I congratulate you on expressing the same sentiment without using the actual word...

You're oh-so-creative that way.

EDIT: And note that I never claimed you said the word.

[Eyerish]

128. It seems like you want to pick a fight with me...

and I just don't think us expressing our opinions needs to turn into some argument. You disagree with me and that's cool, no one ever said you had to.

[seabeyond]

125. as a parent i ask bloo bloo, what are you saying. we should encourage our children to strip for a

camera to get in touch with their sexuality and send the pictures to men on the net way older than them that they have never met.

this is the desirable parenting?????

[BlooInBloo]

132. Obviously that's the only conceivable alternative I left room for...

Teh stupid, never stops burning.

[dustbunnie]

123. Well, that's the real issue.

Girls, and boys I guess, are being pressured into this and contrary to what others say, this wasn't the norm all that long ago. When I went to school, people had lots of sex, as they always did, but nobody disseminated naked pics of themselves throughout an entire school, to strangers all over to the country and abroad (can be done in seconds over the net or with a cell), or to people who might use it to hurt. I believe it's a lack of self esteem in lots of cases, especially in girls, who do this to garner approval from boys and/or their peer group, not because they are so sexually emancipated. It is sad, and girls do get hurt.

[marksmithfield]

131. Where was the parenting?

The guy is the problem. I hope they throw the proverbial book at him. but the kid needs some counseling.

[LiberalPersona]

142. Parents

shouldn't even be giving their children feature rich phones that let them do this kind of thing in the first place.

[cherish44]

153. Charging the girl with child porn is a little over the top

If the 27 year old man knew she was 15 and accepted her nude pictures then yeah he should be in some trouble. The girl? Well if she were my kid I'd take away her frickin phone and computer until she gets out of her exhibitionist phase or turns 18, whichever comes first. And that's exactly how I'd explain it to her.

[20score]

154. Wow, the stupidity and puritanical hypocrisy are stunning.

There is no excuse for charging a 15 year old with pornography against herself. How can this even be discussed seriously... by supposed adults?

[GliderGuider]

161. This is like charging some who attempts suicide with "attempted murder"

While that has been done in the past, it's considered a little ridiculous (or bizarre, perverse or even insane) today. How can any person be considered both perpetrator and victim in the same crime?

If someone else had sent her picture, or if she had sent pictures of someone else the charge might have been reasonable. Laying such a charge in this case is utterly irrational, and possibly even an abuse of the law. I hope she sues.