PDA

View Full Version : 15 yr old girl charged with felony for taking nude cell photo of herself!


LordSegan
10-08-2008, 04:31 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,434645,00.html

What the FUCK?!

This country is going to HELL.

I sincerely hope that the prosecutor doing this is investigated by the state bar and sanctioned.

In a perfect world, that fucking prosecutor would be charged with crimes against humanity by a Grand Jury and strung up at dawn.

Disgusting.

3chordcharlie
10-08-2008, 04:32 PM
How old is 15 anyway?

OCGuy
10-08-2008, 04:32 PM
Wow. That sick f*ck probably just wanted to get his hands on the photos as "evidence".

jonks
10-08-2008, 04:33 PM
same old story

http://news.cnet.com/Police-bl...00-1030_3-6157857.html (http://news.cnet.com/Police-blotter-Teens-prosecuted-for-racy-photos/2100-1030_3-6157857.html)

loki8481
10-08-2008, 04:35 PM
I always wondered how it would work if a minor took naked pictures of themselves while underage, waited till they were an adult, and then published them.

who'd be the victim?

LordSegan
10-08-2008, 04:41 PM
Originally posted by: loki8481
I always wondered how it would work if a minor took naked pictures of themselves while underage, waited till they were an adult, and then published them.

who'd be the victim?

Actually, the law is clear on that. It would be a crime to own or distribute those photos.

There is actually a playboy mag that is illegal to own to this day because about 30 year ago some chick was printed in them who was only about 16 at the time. Very famous case, and I am sure some of those playboys are still out there.. she had claimed she was 18 obviously.

flavio
10-08-2008, 04:44 PM
pics?

Ok, that was wrong. :)

bamacre
10-08-2008, 04:45 PM
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
How old is 15 anyway?

15.

Arkaign
10-08-2008, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by: flavio
pics?

Ok, that was wrong. :)

lol you beat me to it!

Atomic Playboy
10-08-2008, 04:47 PM
"A prosecutor says Licking County authorities also considering charges for students who received the photos."

Nice. Not only does she get prosecuted for taking nude photos of herself, but they're considering prosecuting people who received them as well? Hmmm, that gives me an idea...

Hey kids! Having problems with bullies at school? Don't sweat it! Simply take nude pictures of yourself, send them to the bully, preferably in as many ways possible (send digital copies to the bully's cell phone and e-mail, send hard copies through the mail, and, if possible, try to recreate said photo in Sharpie on the bully's face). Guess what? That bully is now a registered sex offender! Sure, you may be get beat up; you may even spend some time in jail. But that bully is going to brandished a pervert for the rest of his life. You win!

This country is absolutely fucking retarded when it comes to anything regarding sexuality.

Butterbean
10-08-2008, 04:51 PM
Originally posted by: LordSegan
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,434645,00.html

What the FUCK?!

This country is going to HELL.




Word - it's pretty vile when a 15 yr old gets busted for sending her nudes out over the internetz. Obama and ACLU will fix this

miketheidiot
10-08-2008, 04:54 PM
Originally posted by: Butterbean
Originally posted by: LordSegan
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,434645,00.html

What the FUCK?!

This country is going to HELL.




Word - it's pretty vile when a 15 yr old gets busted for sending her nudes out over the internetz. Obama and ACLU will fix this


shes the one that did it, moron.

jpeyton
10-08-2008, 04:56 PM
This is typical high school teenage naughtiness.

This prosecutor should be hanged for his world-record prudish nature.

Originally posted by: Butterbean
Word - it's pretty vile when a 15 yr old gets busted for sending her nudes out over the internetz. Obama and ACLU will fix this
I hope so. What kind of world do we live in when teenage boys can't see some titties?

Craig234
10-08-2008, 04:57 PM
In other news, 99.9% of males age 14-17 were charged today with sex abuse of a minor.

DisgruntledVirus
10-08-2008, 05:01 PM
A prosecutor says Licking County authorities also considering charges for students who received the photos.

First off gotta get the lulz for licking county in a sexual case :P

Second bolding.... WTF!?!?!?! So now because I get SENT pictures by somebody else I get in trouble? I know that child porn is illegal no matter where it is, but seriously getting in trouble for the girl being a little whore is effed up....

Pastore
10-08-2008, 05:02 PM
No one takes a crack at Newark Licking Valley? I thought this was AT?

OCGuy
10-08-2008, 05:02 PM
Originally posted by: Butterbean
Originally posted by: LordSegan
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,434645,00.html

What the FUCK?!

This country is going to HELL.




Word - it's pretty vile when a 15 yr old gets busted for sending her nudes out over the internetz. Obama and ACLU will fix this


Sarcasm?

LordSegan
10-08-2008, 05:04 PM
Some of you posting in this thread, do you actually support the prosecutor, or is my meter off today?

jpeyton
10-08-2008, 05:06 PM
Originally posted by: LordSegan
Some of you posting in this thread, do you actually support the prosecutor, or is my meter off today?
Your meter isn't off. Some of the GOP trolls on this forum like Butterball are truly deranged.

Arkaign
10-08-2008, 05:09 PM
Serious question. Now, if they're going to charge the people who received these photos (with or without their consent?), then they appear to be charging anyone who possesses the images, or has looked at them. I would assume that includes the prosecutor and the local police dept? Perhaps some various staff at the school.

Fair is fair, we should charge all of them with the same crimes, and enforce it via citizen's arrest. Fuck 'em.

At least burn down their fucking houses and perhaps rip out some of their bones with a crowbar so you could stab them with their own broken bone shards. Or maybe cut out one of the prosecutor's eyes, and cut out one of his testicles, and shove the testicle into his empty eye socket. Hmm, also be pretty cool to cut out various internal organs and force him to eat them.

Butterbean
10-08-2008, 05:10 PM
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: Butterbean
Originally posted by: LordSegan
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,434645,00.html

What the FUCK?!

This country is going to HELL.




Word - it's pretty vile when a 15 yr old gets busted for sending her nudes out over the internetz. Obama and ACLU will fix this


shes the one that did it, moron.

Eactly Mr UsernameFits

eskimospy
10-08-2008, 05:23 PM
Originally posted by: Butterbean
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: Butterbean

Word - it's pretty vile when a 15 yr old gets busted for sending her nudes out over the internetz. Obama and ACLU will fix this


shes the one that did it, moron.

Eactly Mr UsernameFits

So you think 15 year olds should be prosecuted for taking nude pictures of themselves?

ElFenix
10-08-2008, 05:29 PM
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Butterbean
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: Butterbean

Word - it's pretty vile when a 15 yr old gets busted for sending her nudes out over the internetz. Obama and ACLU will fix this


shes the one that did it, moron.

Eactly Mr UsernameFits

So you think 15 year olds should be prosecuted for taking nude pictures of themselves?

i don't have any idea how you get that out of the post.


edit: after seeing the below i have no idea how the above post fits with the below post.

Butterbean
10-08-2008, 05:34 PM
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Butterbean
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: Butterbean

Word - it's pretty vile when a 15 yr old gets busted for sending her nudes out over the internetz. Obama and ACLU will fix this


shes the one that did it, moron.

Eactly Mr UsernameFits

So you think 15 year olds should be prosecuted for taking nude pictures of themselves?

I think it should be illegal for 15 yr olds to send nude pic of themselves over net yes - and as much for their protection as anything else. Sorry you wouldn't but not surprised..oink.

yllus
10-08-2008, 05:36 PM
Originally posted by: Butterbean
I think it should be illegal for 15 yr olds to send nude pic of themselves over net yes - and as much for their protection as anything else. Sorry you wouldn't but not surprised..oink.

So the solution is to bring criminal proceedings against them and register them as sex offenders for the rest of their lives? :confused:

eskimospy
10-08-2008, 05:41 PM
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Butterbean
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: Butterbean

Word - it's pretty vile when a 15 yr old gets busted for sending her nudes out over the internetz. Obama and ACLU will fix this


shes the one that did it, moron.

Eactly Mr UsernameFits

So you think 15 year olds should be prosecuted for taking nude pictures of themselves?

i don't have any idea how you get that out of the post.

Pretty simple really, the news story says that the 15 year old was being charged with 'illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material'. That means she is being charged for creating the pictures. She was busted because she distributed them and this alerted the police, but the crime she is being charged with is their creation. (as best as I can tell)

Butterbean voiced support for these charges being brought against the girl, therefore it is reasonable to believe that he thinks a 15 year old should be prosecuted for taking nude pictures of herself. It is possible that Butterbean just didn't read the article and would not agree with the charges and only believes that people should be prosecuted for their transmission instead of their creation, and so in that case there would be a bit of a misunderstanding. My assumption was certainly not unreasonable though.

eskimospy
10-08-2008, 05:45 PM
Originally posted by: Butterbean
Originally posted by: eskimospy

So you think 15 year olds should be prosecuted for taking nude pictures of themselves?

I think it should be illegal for 15 yr olds to send nude pic of themselves over net yes - and as much for their protection as anything else. Sorry you wouldn't but not surprised..oink.

I see no problem with laws prohibiting minors from transmitting these sorts of pictures to other people for their own protection. I completely disagree with charging them with the same crime that a 40 year old man gets charged with when he exploits a child for sexual gratification.

Duwelon
10-08-2008, 05:59 PM
Case in point, a girl is spreading CHILD PORN and the resident liberals can't see beyond "she did it herself" to see the damage to society it causes as well as to HERSELF in a few years when she's a little less insane.

I seriously don't know how some of you conservatives can stomache coming to this forum so much, it fills me with dispair to see this kind of evil and hatred for law and order on parade each day.

dennilfloss
10-08-2008, 06:00 PM
Originally posted by: LordSegan

There is actually a playboy mag that is illegal to own to this day because about 30 year ago some chick was printed in them who was only about 16 at the time. Very famous case, and I am sure some of those playboys are still out there.. she had claimed she was 18 obviously.

I remember buying the September 1984 issue of Penthouse magazine with Traci Lords as centerfold and Vanessa Williams lesbo nudity while doing preliminary field work in southern Oregon. Had to throw it away later.:(

http://wonderclub.com/magazine...nthouse/tracilords.htm (http://wonderclub.com/magazines/penthouse/tracilords.htm)

The origin of Section 2257...

OCGuy
10-08-2008, 06:05 PM
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Case in point, a girl is spreading CHILD PORN and the resident liberals can't see beyond "she did it herself" to see the damage to society it causes as well as to HERSELF in a few years when she's a little less insane.

I seriously don't know how some of you conservatives can stomache coming to this forum so much, it fills me with dispair to see this kind of evil and hatred for law and order on parade each day.


I am a resident non-leftie, and you are off. CHILD PORN is an inflammatory word. The pictures would have to be of a graphic nature in order to be "porn". If it is merely her nude body and nothing explicit, then a nice suspension and the embarassment that she is already getting should be enough.

If she was giving it to adults, or they were sexually natured, well thats different.

eskimospy
10-08-2008, 06:06 PM
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Case in point, a girl is spreading CHILD PORN and the resident liberals can't see beyond "she did it herself" to see the damage to society it causes as well as to HERSELF in a few years when she's a little less insane.

I seriously don't know how some of you conservatives can stomache coming to this forum so much, it fills me with dispair to see this kind of evil and hatred for law and order on parade each day.

What damage to society does it cause? I'm curious.

While I'm certain that she will regret sending those photos, I'm pretty sure that whatever damage is done to her through the dissemination of these pictures will absolutely pale in comparison to the damage that will be done to her if the prosecution pursues the average sentence in a case such as this and places her on the sex offender registry for life.

Prosecuting and threatening to lock up a dumb teenager for taking pictures of herself and texting them around is what's evil. This is the sort of thing that should get her cell phone taken away, some harsh punishment for her parents, not a jail term and a criminal record. Some people here just seem to be crazy when it comes to sex.

Butterbean
10-08-2008, 06:06 PM
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Butterbean
Originally posted by: eskimospy

So you think 15 year olds should be prosecuted for taking nude pictures of themselves?

I think it should be illegal for 15 yr olds to send nude pic of themselves over net yes - and as much for their protection as anything else. Sorry you wouldn't but not surprised..oink.

I see no problem with laws prohibiting minors from transmitting these sorts of pictures to other people for their own protection. I completely disagree with charging them with the same crime that a 40 year old man gets charged with when he exploits a child for sexual gratification.

You might feel different if you got in trouble because you happened to come across such a pic
on your travels and had it on your PC - even in cache. One 15 yr old kids little ego escapade can become an over 18 yr old guys sex offender label. Its better the little underage trollop put up with the stress of her own foibles than get the web littered with jailbait pics.

Duwelon
10-08-2008, 06:07 PM
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Case in point, a girl is spreading CHILD PORN and the resident liberals can't see beyond "she did it herself" to see the damage to society it causes as well as to HERSELF in a few years when she's a little less insane.

I seriously don't know how some of you conservatives can stomache coming to this forum so much, it fills me with dispair to see this kind of evil and hatred for law and order on parade each day.


I am a resident non-leftie, and you are off. CHILD PORN is an inflammatory word. The pictures would have to be of a graphic nature in order to be "porn". If it is merely her nude body and nothing explicit, then a nice suspension and the embarassment that she is already getting should be enough.

If it's merely her nude body? What?

yllus
10-08-2008, 06:08 PM
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Case in point, a girl is spreading CHILD PORN and the resident liberals can't see beyond "she did it herself" to see the damage to society it causes as well as to HERSELF in a few years when she's a little less insane.

I seriously don't know how some of you conservatives can stomache coming to this forum so much, it fills me with dispair to see this kind of evil and hatred for law and order on parade each day.

I think it's dumb to start a court case to brand a 15-year-old a sex offender for the rest of her life for taking a photo of herself naked and passing it around. In terms of authority action, it should have never progressed beyond the point of her parents being alerted.

Stomache? Dispair? Has Dan Quayle started posting on AnandTech in his retirement?

eskimospy
10-08-2008, 06:09 PM
Originally posted by: Butterbean

You might feel different if you got in trouble because you happened to come across such a pic
on your travels and had it on your PC - even in cache. One 15 yr old kids little ego escapade can become an over 18 yr old guys sex offender label. Its better the little underage trollop put up with the stress of her own foibles than get the web littered with jailbait pics.

First of all I'm not particularly worried about that, and second of all if that's an issue that needs to be solved I hardly think locking up dumb teenagers and placing them on the sex offender registry is the answer.

OCGuy
10-08-2008, 06:09 PM
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Case in point, a girl is spreading CHILD PORN and the resident liberals can't see beyond "she did it herself" to see the damage to society it causes as well as to HERSELF in a few years when she's a little less insane.

I seriously don't know how some of you conservatives can stomache coming to this forum so much, it fills me with dispair to see this kind of evil and hatred for law and order on parade each day.


I am a resident non-leftie, and you are off. CHILD PORN is an inflammatory word. The pictures would have to be of a graphic nature in order to be "porn". If it is merely her nude body and nothing explicit, then a nice suspension and the embarassment that she is already getting should be enough.

If it's merely her nude body? What?


This wouldnt happen to be John Ashcroft, would it?

http://www.unitedstatesgovernm.../coveringupjustice.htm (http://www.unitedstatesgovernment.net/coveringupjustice.htm)

dmcowen674
10-08-2008, 06:10 PM
Originally posted by: LordSegan
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,434645,00.html

NEWARK, Ohio ? Central Ohio authorities have filed felony charges against a 15-year-old girl accused of taking nude cell phone photos of herself and sending them to high school classmates.

Police say the Newark Licking Valley student was arrested Friday and held over the weekend.

On Monday, she entered denials to juvenile charges of illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material and possession of criminal tools.

A prosecutor says Licking County authorities also considering charges for students who received the photos.


Apparently these students are going against American school established religious mandates.

These students must be found guilty, serve time and register as sex offenders immediately.

It is the only way to stop the liberal madness.

Duwelon
10-08-2008, 06:12 PM
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Case in point, a girl is spreading CHILD PORN and the resident liberals can't see beyond "she did it herself" to see the damage to society it causes as well as to HERSELF in a few years when she's a little less insane.

I seriously don't know how some of you conservatives can stomache coming to this forum so much, it fills me with dispair to see this kind of evil and hatred for law and order on parade each day.

What damage to society does it cause? I'm curious.

While I'm certain that she will regret sending those photos, I'm pretty sure that whatever damage is done to her through the dissemination of these pictures will absolutely pale in comparison to the damage that will be done to her if the prosecution pursues the average sentence in a case such as this and places her on the sex offender registry for life.

Prosecuting and threatening to lock up a dumb teenager for taking pictures of herself and texting them around is what's evil. This is the sort of thing that should get her cell phone taken away, some harsh punishment for her parents, not a jail term and a criminal record. Some people here just seem to be crazy when it comes to sex.

First off, you know she's not going to get treated the same way an 18 year old distributing child porn is. She's a minor, and whatever sentense she's given will be a slap on the wrist in comparison to an adult, and I have no problem with that.

About the damage to society thing, if it weren't asked by you, i would have been surprised. Allowing child porn to be distributed legally is basically like telling every potential pedophile (90%+ of men), "You can look all you want, but don't touch!"

It's so sad that this isn't evident to you, even for you eskimospy.

Duwelon
10-08-2008, 06:14 PM
Originally posted by: yllus
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Case in point, a girl is spreading CHILD PORN and the resident liberals can't see beyond "she did it herself" to see the damage to society it causes as well as to HERSELF in a few years when she's a little less insane.

I seriously don't know how some of you conservatives can stomache coming to this forum so much, it fills me with dispair to see this kind of evil and hatred for law and order on parade each day.

I think it's dumb to start a court case to brand a 15-year-old a sex offender for the rest of her life for taking a photo of herself naked and passing it around. In terms of authority action, it should have never progressed beyond the point of her parents being alerted.

Stomache? Dispair? Has Dan Quayle started posting on AnandTech in his retirement?

What the girl does with her camera I couldn't care less, but when she starts distributing child porn, that MUST be stopped, and damn right the authorities need to get involved. She'll get a slap on the wrist compared to what an 18+ sex offender would get.

Duwelon
10-08-2008, 06:17 PM
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Case in point, a girl is spreading CHILD PORN and the resident liberals can't see beyond "she did it herself" to see the damage to society it causes as well as to HERSELF in a few years when she's a little less insane.

I seriously don't know how some of you conservatives can stomache coming to this forum so much, it fills me with dispair to see this kind of evil and hatred for law and order on parade each day.


I am a resident non-leftie, and you are off. CHILD PORN is an inflammatory word. The pictures would have to be of a graphic nature in order to be "porn". If it is merely her nude body and nothing explicit, then a nice suspension and the embarassment that she is already getting should be enough.

If it's merely her nude body? What?


This wouldnt happen to be John Ashcroft, would it?

http://www.unitedstatesgovernm.../coveringupjustice.htm (http://www.unitedstatesgovernment.net/coveringupjustice.htm)

I'm sorry, let me try again: What the hell do you mean 'just her nude body'? If it's her nude body it's child pornography, unless it's something like that that Hannah Montana girl on some magazine awhile ago where no privates were revealed, is that what you meant?

eskimospy
10-08-2008, 06:20 PM
Originally posted by: Duwelon

First off, you know she's not going to get treated the same way an 18 year old distributing child porn is. She's a minor, and whatever sentense she's given will be a slap on the wrist in comparison to an adult, and I have no problem with that.

About the damage to society thing, if it weren't asked by you, i would have been surprised. Allowing child porn to be distributed legally is basically like telling every potential pedophile (90%+ of men), "You can look all you want, but don't touch!"

It's so sad that this isn't evident to you, even for you eskimospy.

You think 90% of men are potential pedophiles waiting to be 'activated' by seeing sweet sweet child porn? I'm not sure what area of the country you live in, but I suggest you move immediately. Sounds like you have some bad neighbors.

I do agree that she will likely get a significantly lighter punishment than some creepy old man would, and she might not have to register as a sex offender. Then again, she very well could. She is completely at the mercy of prosecutorial and judicial discretion. Bad idea.

As I mentioned earlier I would be open to hearing about some statutory ways to keep kids from being idiots and sending around what would be considered child porn if they were adults. (I'm not worried about it turning otherwise law abiding men into sex fiends as you apparently are, I'm more worried about the child's safety and possible exploitation) Prosecuting them under this law is the absolute worst way possible to do that. It's completely absurd.

ElFenix
10-08-2008, 06:24 PM
Originally posted by: eskimospy


Butterbean voiced support for these charges being brought against the girl, therefore it is reasonable to believe that he thinks a 15 year old should be prosecuted for taking nude pictures of herself.

i didn't see this:
it's pretty vile when a 15 yr old gets busted for sending her nudes out over the internetz
as voicing support for her getting busted. maybe your trolldar is better than mine.

Duwelon
10-08-2008, 06:25 PM
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Duwelon

First off, you know she's not going to get treated the same way an 18 year old distributing child porn is. She's a minor, and whatever sentense she's given will be a slap on the wrist in comparison to an adult, and I have no problem with that.

About the damage to society thing, if it weren't asked by you, i would have been surprised. Allowing child porn to be distributed legally is basically like telling every potential pedophile (90%+ of men), "You can look all you want, but don't touch!"

It's so sad that this isn't evident to you, even for you eskimospy.

You think 90% of men are potential pedophiles waiting to be 'activated' by seeing sweet sweet child porn? I'm not sure what area of the country you live in, but I suggest you move immediately. Sounds like you have some bad neighbors.

I do agree that she will likely get a significantly lighter punishment than some creepy old man would, and she might not have to register as a sex offender. Then again, she very well could. She is completely at the mercy of prosecutorial and judicial discretion. Bad idea.

As I mentioned earlier I would be open to hearing about some statutory ways to keep kids from being idiots and sending around what would be considered child porn if they were adults. (I'm not worried about it turning otherwise law abiding men into sex fiends as you apparently are, I'm more worried about the child's safety and possible exploitation) Prosecuting them under this law is the absolute worst way possible to do that. It's completely absurd.

What exactly are you worried about as far as a final outcome for this girl? What do you think the courts will do to her that she doesn't deserve?

eskimospy
10-08-2008, 06:27 PM
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: eskimospy


Butterbean voiced support for these charges being brought against the girl, therefore it is reasonable to believe that he thinks a 15 year old should be prosecuted for taking nude pictures of herself.

i didn't see this:
it's pretty vile when a 15 yr old gets busted for sending her nudes out over the internetz
as voicing support for her getting busted. maybe your trolldar is better than mine.

I guess I've been observing Butterbean for quite awhile, National Geographic style. He absolutely hates Obama and the ACLU, and he's got serious mental problems when it comes to sex. That's how I knew he was being sarcastic.

Duwelon
10-08-2008, 06:30 PM
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: eskimospy


Butterbean voiced support for these charges being brought against the girl, therefore it is reasonable to believe that he thinks a 15 year old should be prosecuted for taking nude pictures of herself.

i didn't see this:
it's pretty vile when a 15 yr old gets busted for sending her nudes out over the internetz
as voicing support for her getting busted. maybe your trolldar is better than mine.

I guess I've been observing Butterbean for quite awhile, National Geographic style. He absolutely hates Obama and the ACLU, and he's got serious mental problems when it comes to sex. That's how I knew he was being sarcastic.

And he's about the only other sane voice on this thread.

eskimospy
10-08-2008, 06:31 PM
Originally posted by: Duwelon

What exactly are you worried about as far as a final outcome for this girl? What do you think the courts will do to her that she doesn't deserve?

Her being placed in the sex offender registry for starters. I tried to look up the exact sentencing for that crime in Ohio but I didn't find it too easily. The girl deserves parental sanction for what she did, not jail time.

eskimospy
10-08-2008, 06:32 PM
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: eskimospy


Butterbean voiced support for these charges being brought against the girl, therefore it is reasonable to believe that he thinks a 15 year old should be prosecuted for taking nude pictures of herself.

i didn't see this:
it's pretty vile when a 15 yr old gets busted for sending her nudes out over the internetz
as voicing support for her getting busted. maybe your trolldar is better than mine.

I guess I've been observing Butterbean for quite awhile, National Geographic style. He absolutely hates Obama and the ACLU, and he's got serious mental problems when it comes to sex. That's how I knew he was being sarcastic.

And he's about the only other sane voice on this thread.

Here's ATPN Rule #1: If you find yourself referring to Butterbean as "the only sane voice in this thread", you're doing something wrong.

yllus
10-08-2008, 06:35 PM
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: eskimospy


Butterbean voiced support for these charges being brought against the girl, therefore it is reasonable to believe that he thinks a 15 year old should be prosecuted for taking nude pictures of herself.

i didn't see this:
it's pretty vile when a 15 yr old gets busted for sending her nudes out over the internetz
as voicing support for her getting busted. maybe your trolldar is better than mine.

I guess I've been observing Butterbean for quite awhile, National Geographic style. He absolutely hates Obama and the ACLU, and he's got serious mental problems when it comes to sex. That's how I knew he was being sarcastic.

lol

extra
10-08-2008, 06:58 PM
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Case in point, a girl is spreading CHILD PORN and the resident liberals can't see beyond "she did it herself" to see the damage to society it causes as well as to HERSELF in a few years when she's a little less insane.

I seriously don't know how some of you conservatives can stomache coming to this forum so much, it fills me with dispair to see this kind of evil and hatred for law and order on parade each day.

This is sarcasm... right... right? RIGHT? Brb, going to go play in traffic I don't think I want to live anymore after experiencing the depressing stupidity in this thread.

Seriously. Who the hell didn't have a naughty pic of their gf/bf when they were in high school??????? That doesn't mean you were a pedophile or into child porn, that means you were normal horny teenager. If you had pictures of like, an 8 year old naked, or something, then obviously that's completely different shit prosecute them by all means please. But this thread isn't even talking about someone's gf or something. It's talking about someone past puberty taking a picture of THEMSELVES and getting charged for it.

This is like.. I don't know.. like doing some work on your car and then getting in trouble because you didn't pay yourself minimum wage, or something. It makes that little sense.

Who wants to bet it isn't just some creepy prosecutor that wanted to see the damn pictures or something pathetic like that....

WHAMPOM
10-08-2008, 07:28 PM
Originally posted by: LordSegan
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,434645,00.html

What the FUCK?!

This country is going to HELL.

I sincerely hope that the prosecutor doing this is investigated by the state bar and sanctioned.

In a perfect world, that fucking prosecutor would be charged with crimes against humanity by a Grand Jury and strung up at dawn.

Disgusting.

Likely reason for prosecution of nekkid teen, needs distraction from own discretions, taking bribes or own sexual perversions.

Craig234
10-08-2008, 07:31 PM
Originally posted by: extra
Who the hell didn't have a naughty pic of their gf/bf when they were in high school??????? .

Shut up, you jerk.

:)

Lemon law
10-08-2008, 07:35 PM
Oh my God, the girl is a one girl crime wave. It may not be a felony for her to look at herself in the mirror, but through new technologies involving inconvenienced electrons, she can not only make herself into a criminal, she can make you and I into criminals. Its must be some patient infringement, because EVE hold the patient rights.

But God damn it lets cut to the chase, we need to sentence the perps in the coppertone girl kiddie porn scam to death. And we need more than Birkas, we must bury all females under bushel baskets for the sake of our immortal souls. Stone this adulterer I say, stone her, Bash her into a mass of unrecognizable hunk of protoplasm or my very mind will be blown.

Engineer
10-08-2008, 07:43 PM
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Oh my God, the girl is a one girl crime wave. It may not be a felony for her to look at herself in the mirror, but through new technologies involving inconvenienced electrons, she can not only make herself into a criminal, she can make you and I into criminals. Its must be some patient infringement, because EVE hold the patient rights.

But God damn it lets cut to the chase, we need to sentence the perps in the coppertone girl kiddie porn scam to death. And we need more than Birkas, we must bury all females under bushel baskets for the sake of our immortal souls. Stone this adulterer I say, stone her, Bash her into a mass of unrecognizable hunk of protoplasm or my very mind will be blown.

Heh. Damn religious nuts...in this thread and in Ohio too.

(not you LL).

Absolutely no reason to charge that child (yes, she is a child) with a felony in this case. Hopefully, she will only be slapped on the wrist. If she is branded a sexual offender, the entire justice system just became a permanent fucked up mess. What a bunch of morons.

JD50
10-08-2008, 07:48 PM
Originally posted by: yllus
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: eskimospy


Butterbean voiced support for these charges being brought against the girl, therefore it is reasonable to believe that he thinks a 15 year old should be prosecuted for taking nude pictures of herself.

i didn't see this:
it's pretty vile when a 15 yr old gets busted for sending her nudes out over the internetz
as voicing support for her getting busted. maybe your trolldar is better than mine.

I guess I've been observing Butterbean for quite awhile, National Geographic style. He absolutely hates Obama and the ACLU, and he's got serious mental problems when it comes to sex. That's how I knew he was being sarcastic.

lol

I think Butterbean should get a custom facepalm avatar for this forum.

WHAMPOM
10-08-2008, 07:57 PM
"Holy sexually repressed America, Batman!" The self made nude pictures of a teenager do not meet the same level of depravity as explicid photos of a six year old. Must be a slow month and trying to justify their pay check.

Zorba
10-08-2008, 08:06 PM
Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
Originally posted by: LordSegan
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,434645,00.html

What the FUCK?!

This country is going to HELL.

I sincerely hope that the prosecutor doing this is investigated by the state bar and sanctioned.

In a perfect world, that fucking prosecutor would be charged with crimes against humanity by a Grand Jury and strung up at dawn.

Disgusting.

Likely reason for prosecution of nekkid teen, needs distraction from own discretions, taking bribes or own sexual perversions.

It is an election year, I am sure the DA is just trying to score some points with the wingnuts.

Zorba
10-08-2008, 08:08 PM
Just wait, it'll be illegal for teenagers to masturbate. They'll be charged with child molestation.

Moonbeam
10-08-2008, 08:42 PM
This is a culture war issue. between religious conservative morality and secular liberal morality.

To the folk on the right, we on the left have no morality, and to those on the left the right look like Taliban primitive, sexually repressed idiots, fearful that someone, somewhere, is having fun.

Many of our laws that are on the books were written in the past when folk on the right had more power. Today they are reacting violently to the fact their world is dying.

Each side has valid moral perspective. Children need to be protected from the sexually sick. Everybody, I think, agrees on this. The argument is all about how to do this. The left wants children educated for their own protection, the right wants to protect them themselves. Both are good if they work.

But obviously protecting children in the cities where liberal children live is impossible because of the relatively mush greater exposure to what is going on in the world. Rural kids can still grow up in relative sexual ignorance and be OK more or less.

Like guns, now we see sex and innocence and sexual information depends on where we live. If guns and sexual ignorance are killing you and your kids you want those things to end and if guns protect you and naivety is feasible you will want them.

In this particular issue I should think judgment will have to wait till the law has fully weighed in. We will see if they come to a lunatic or sensible solution. There are pros and cons on both sides of the reactions we see in this thread, it seems to me.

Sacrilege
10-08-2008, 08:49 PM
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Case in point, a girl is spreading CHILD PORN and the resident liberals can't see beyond "she did it herself" to see the damage to society it causes as well as to HERSELF in a few years when she's a little less insane.

I seriously don't know how some of you conservatives can stomache coming to this forum so much, it fills me with dispair to see this kind of evil and hatred for law and order on parade each day.

What damage to society does it cause? I'm curious.

While I'm certain that she will regret sending those photos, I'm pretty sure that whatever damage is done to her through the dissemination of these pictures will absolutely pale in comparison to the damage that will be done to her if the prosecution pursues the average sentence in a case such as this and places her on the sex offender registry for life.

Prosecuting and threatening to lock up a dumb teenager for taking pictures of herself and texting them around is what's evil. This is the sort of thing that should get her cell phone taken away, some harsh punishment for her parents, not a jail term and a criminal record. Some people here just seem to be crazy when it comes to sex.

First off, you know she's not going to get treated the same way an 18 year old distributing child porn is. She's a minor, and whatever sentense she's given will be a slap on the wrist in comparison to an adult, and I have no problem with that.

About the damage to society thing, if it weren't asked by you, i would have been surprised. Allowing child porn to be distributed legally is basically like telling every potential pedophile (90%+ of men), "You can look all you want, but don't touch!"

It's so sad that this isn't evident to you, even for you eskimospy.

What exactly are you saying here? The hang up on sex and sexual perversions between you and Butterbean is kind of strange. No wonder you view each other as fellow travelers in this thread.

Double Trouble
10-08-2008, 09:57 PM
I'll give 10-1 odds that the prosecutor is a pedo himself, or has some sordid business he's trying to repress... This merits a solid WTF?

Deadtrees
10-08-2008, 10:22 PM
If school detection was given, I wouldn't think it's fucked up.
Charging her with felony is seriously fucked up.

extra
10-08-2008, 10:29 PM
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
This is a culture war issue. between religious conservative morality and secular liberal morality.


I disagree. This is a war between some complete lunatic retard and everyone else. ;-)

I don't even think the vast majority of extreme right wing conservatives would agree with this--but maybe I'm out of touch.

Seriously, whatever happened to, oh, I duno:

1. The irresponsible girl's parents are told and then we move to step 2...

2. They take her cell phone away and keep a closer eye on her and be ... I duno...parents.

Actually I take everything I said back. Hats off to this prosecutor. Here's what I'm thinking went down:

some guy on 4chan: "dude, you're not really a lawyer....."
some other guy: "yeah stfu n00b lol go back to the yaoi forum u perv"
prosecutor: "okay lol guys check this shit out, watch.. oh and i'll have the pics up tommorow lolololololol"

miketheidiot
10-08-2008, 10:30 PM
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Originally posted by: yllus
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Case in point, a girl is spreading CHILD PORN and the resident liberals can't see beyond "she did it herself" to see the damage to society it causes as well as to HERSELF in a few years when she's a little less insane.

I seriously don't know how some of you conservatives can stomache coming to this forum so much, it fills me with dispair to see this kind of evil and hatred for law and order on parade each day.

I think it's dumb to start a court case to brand a 15-year-old a sex offender for the rest of her life for taking a photo of herself naked and passing it around. In terms of authority action, it should have never progressed beyond the point of her parents being alerted.

Stomache? Dispair? Has Dan Quayle started posting on AnandTech in his retirement?

What the girl does with her camera I couldn't care less, but when she starts distributing child porn, that MUST be stopped, and damn right the authorities need to get involved. She'll get a slap on the wrist compared to what an 18+ sex offender would get.

i'm glad that you can both see the future and read the mind of the prosecutor.

miketheidiot
10-08-2008, 10:35 PM
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: eskimospy


Butterbean voiced support for these charges being brought against the girl, therefore it is reasonable to believe that he thinks a 15 year old should be prosecuted for taking nude pictures of herself.

i didn't see this:
it's pretty vile when a 15 yr old gets busted for sending her nudes out over the internetz
as voicing support for her getting busted. maybe your trolldar is better than mine.

Obama and ACLU will fix this

its not necessarily that your trolldar was better or worse than anyone elses, it just hadn't been programmed to detect butterbean.

OutHouse
10-08-2008, 10:55 PM
as a father of a 15 year old i dont even know where to begin with this. I have no idea what i would do if the DA called me into his office and informed me that he was going to charge my daughter with a felony for doing such a stupid thing. there are reasons we have juvenile laws becasue kids are stupid and do stupid things. but to brand her for the rest of her life for a mistake like this is just wrong and in my humble opinion goes against the constitution cruel and unusual punishment.

i hope the judge throws this out and publicly humiliates the DA.

Sacrilege
10-08-2008, 11:25 PM
Originally posted by: Citrix
as a father of a 15 year old i dont even know where to begin with this. I have no idea what i would do if the DA called me into his office and informed me that he was going to charge my daughter with a felony for doing such a stupid thing. there are reasons we have juvenile laws becasue kids are stupid and do stupid things. but to brand her for the rest of her life for a mistake like this is just wrong and in my humble opinion goes against the constitution cruel and unusual punishment.

i hope the judge throws this out and publicly humiliates the DA.

You have to remember that crusading DAs are always trying to act tough and impress the public with their merciless stance on crime. It's a slippery slope; if they let some salacious 15 year old off with a slap on the wrist, which other sex offender pervert is next for leniency?

Taejin
10-08-2008, 11:30 PM
pics?

Rainsford
10-09-2008, 12:13 AM
Ignore the fact that this is a story about teenagers and sex, which always seems to drive people into a frenzy, and consider the logic if this were any other crime...the victim and the perpetrator are the same person. If someone else had taken the picture, or coerced her into taking it, then she would be the victim and the other party could be charged with a crime. But without that other person, I find it difficult to imaging that the law would allow a prosecutor to prove criminal liability. Of course we live in a country where smoking pot by yourself in your house is illegal, so who knows.

But no matter how many times our resident moral crusaders cry "child pornography", the rest of their rhetoric shows a motivation that has nothing to do with protecting a minor. People, especially girls, are expected to be totally innocent from birth until marriage, at which time they are free to follow their biological instincts. Of course that's very rarely what happens, and THAT is what they are trying to fight here. The focus on a picture is just a convenient attack vector, they'd try to prosecute her for her boyfriend seeing her naked in person if they could. After all, if a naked picture is child pornography (no matter the circumstances), then actual sex must be much worse.

Ignoring the fact that this line of thought would place most high school teenagers in legal hot water, when did context stop mattering? It seems to me that the parties claiming the most wrong here are prudish busybodies who are offended...are THEY really the people our laws are supposed to be protecting?

shira
10-09-2008, 12:18 AM
Originally posted by: Butterbean
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Butterbean
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: Butterbean

Word - it's pretty vile when a 15 yr old gets busted for sending her nudes out over the internetz. Obama and ACLU will fix this


shes the one that did it, moron.

Eactly Mr UsernameFits

So you think 15 year olds should be prosecuted for taking nude pictures of themselves?

I think it should be illegal for 15 yr olds to send nude pic of themselves over net yes - and as much for their protection as anything else. Sorry you wouldn't but not surprised..oink.

And if a 15-year old takes nude photos of herself, then waits until she's 21 and at that point sends the photos over the net? Should that person be prosecuted, and if so, why?

jackschmittusa
10-09-2008, 01:06 AM
The justification for all kiddie porn laws has always been to protect children from exploitation and abuse. Even though mere possession of kiddie pics does not involve either, the reasoning was that having such pics helps to create a market for kiddie porn and by extension, fosters such abuse and exploitation. these same arguments have been made for local, state, and federal laws, and argued in the courts at all levels.

So, how in the hell is this case even remotely related to the spirit of the law? Did the girl exploit/abuse herself? Will this act have an impact on the kiddie porn market, increasing demand?

Why not charge a suicide attempt survivor with attempted murder? Makes about as much sense.

Zenmervolt
10-09-2008, 01:20 AM
Originally posted by: Butterbean
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Butterbean
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: Butterbean

Word - it's pretty vile when a 15 yr old gets busted for sending her nudes out over the internetz. Obama and ACLU will fix this


shes the one that did it, moron.

Eactly Mr UsernameFits

So you think 15 year olds should be prosecuted for taking nude pictures of themselves?

I think it should be illegal for 15 yr olds to send nude pic of themselves over net yes - and as much for their protection as anything else. Sorry you wouldn't but not surprised..oink.

Yup, it's for her own good that she will be labeled a sex offender and potentially serve time in jail for this. They're trying to destroy her life, but it's for her own good.

:roll:

Nobody has any business whatsoever dictating laws that are "for your own good".

I am the last person you'll ever find supporting Obama and his plans for "mandatory volunteerism" (doesn't that really make it forced labor Mr. Obama?) for teens or his position that parents should be forced by the government to carry health insurance for their children, but damned if I don't think you're an absolute moron for believing that it's right to prosecute this girl for what she did.

Stop trying to protect people from themselves. They don't want or need to be protected from their own actions. The last thing the world needs is any more moralistic busybodies.

ZV

Zenmervolt
10-09-2008, 01:23 AM
Originally posted by: Butterbean
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Butterbean
Originally posted by: eskimospy

So you think 15 year olds should be prosecuted for taking nude pictures of themselves?

I think it should be illegal for 15 yr olds to send nude pic of themselves over net yes - and as much for their protection as anything else. Sorry you wouldn't but not surprised..oink.

I see no problem with laws prohibiting minors from transmitting these sorts of pictures to other people for their own protection. I completely disagree with charging them with the same crime that a 40 year old man gets charged with when he exploits a child for sexual gratification.

You might feel different if you got in trouble because you happened to come across such a pic
on your travels and had it on your PC - even in cache. One 15 yr old kids little ego escapade can become an over 18 yr old guys sex offender label. Its better the little underage trollop put up with the stress of her own foibles than get the web littered with jailbait pics.

Yes, because the obvious solution to a situation in which a somehow innocent person ends up with that photo and gets arrested is to ruin another person's life to take care of it. A rational and intelligent person would say that the solution is to find a better way of evaluating whether the person caught with the file is truly guilty. Of course, your posts make it obvious that you are neither rational nor intelligent.

ZV

Lemon law
10-09-2008, 06:10 AM
Basically what we have here is the laws of man being taken to ridiculous extremes. In terms of the laws of God, if God was so offended by prepubescent nudity, I am sure God would have arranged for us to be born fully clothed. Then at some magic age, the wraps may legally come off, some what like the cocoon of a butterfly.

And then something else magic happens also, while some parts of society shouts take it off, take it all off, other parts of society rush in with bra's and burkas, saying cover thyself you shame less hussy.

dmcowen674
10-09-2008, 06:21 AM
Originally posted by: Citrix
as a father of a 15 year old i dont even know where to begin with this. I have no idea what i would do if the DA called me into his office and informed me that he was going to charge my daughter with a felony for doing such a stupid thing. there are reasons we have juvenile laws becasue kids are stupid and do stupid things. but to brand her for the rest of her life for a mistake like this is just wrong and in my humble opinion goes against the constitution cruel and unusual punishment.

i hope the judge throws this out and publicly humiliates the DA.

Are you going to take her phone away?

Are you going to take Internet access away from her?

If not, you are not a responsible Republican parent.

Genx87
10-09-2008, 07:17 AM
What an odd case. No idea how the law works regarding a person taking pictures of themselves. I still find it amazing you can be prosecuted for taking a picture of yourself.

But how can they prosecute somebody for recieving unsolicited pics?

Arkaign
10-09-2008, 09:51 AM
Originally posted by: Genx87
What an odd case. No idea how the law works regarding a person taking pictures of themselves. I still find it amazing you can be prosecuted for taking a picture of yourself.

But how can they prosecute somebody for recieving unsolicited pics?

Fascism/Communism/Stupidity.

I find that extreme-left and extreme-right types are about equally idiotic (eg; Butterbean, Steeplerot).

Logically, I don't get the prosecuting people for just receiving the messages. If that's the case, then simply being sent or being in possession of these things can nail ya. If that's the case, I think we should prosecute the prosecutor right? Because the prosecution is in possession of ZOMG child porn!

I really hope some semblance of sanity can wash over our country sometime soon, but I'm worried that this economic crisis will send us tipping over into more extreme stances of all kinds. One thing in common with almost all extremists, right or left, is their slavish authoritarianism.

Pepsei
10-09-2008, 09:59 AM
what do you guys think about Sally Mann? she's a photographer, from Virginia, with published books, some with her nude daughters.


At Twelve: Portraits of Young Women (http://www.amazon.com/At-Twelve-Portraits-Young-Women/dp/0893813303/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1223564297&sr=8-3)

Saga
10-09-2008, 10:00 AM
I personally feel it's appropriate for this double standard to be obliterated and set a message to the underage children of today that it's NOT okay to do these things simply because you don't believe there are punishments for your actions. There ARE punishments, and they are extremely severe for the adults involved. I feel it is fully appropriate for a precedence to be set that perpetrating an act such as this is justifiable to be charged as an adult for the crime given that spending 10 minutes on any myspace or facebook account will make you realize just how common things like this are. The problem is that it's become cool and children see this as a form of expression and do not understand the real adult ramifications of their actions because they do not think they will suffer any consequences personally for putting out pictures of themselves naked. They need to realize that this is NOT okay to do with the laws in our society and they will NOT get off scott free for sending others to jail for their actions.

This and many other double standards that effect not just women but men need to be removed via punishments fit for the crime, and especially punishments fit for what can happen to others who are willing and/or unwilling accomplices to their crime.

DAPUNISHER
10-09-2008, 10:04 AM
Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
Originally posted by: LordSegan
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,434645,00.html

What the FUCK?!

This country is going to HELL.

I sincerely hope that the prosecutor doing this is investigated by the state bar and sanctioned.

In a perfect world, that fucking prosecutor would be charged with crimes against humanity by a Grand Jury and strung up at dawn.

Disgusting.

Likely reason for prosecution of nekkid teen, needs distraction from own indiscretions, taking bribes or own sexual perversions. With the precedence of similar tactics the last few years, that hypothesis deserves a closer look.

Arkaign
10-09-2008, 10:11 AM
Originally posted by: Izusaga
I personally feel it's appropriate for this double standard to be obliterated and set a message to the underage children of today that it's NOT okay to do these things simply because you don't believe there are punishments for your actions. There ARE punishments, and they are extremely severe for the adults involved. I feel it is fully appropriate for a precedence to be set that perpetrating an act such as this is justifiable to be charged as an adult for the crime given that spending 10 minutes on any myspace or facebook account will make you realize just how common things like this are. The problem is that it's become cool and children see this as a form of expression and do not understand the real adult ramifications of their actions because they do not think they will suffer any consequences personally for putting out pictures of themselves naked. They need to realize that this is NOT okay to do with the laws in our society and they will NOT get off scott free for sending others to jail for their actions.

This and many other double standards that effect not just women but men need to be removed via punishments fit for the crime, and especially punishments fit for what can happen to others who are willing and/or unwilling accomplices to their crime.

Just wow. Do you really think this is a valuable usage of our tax money and resources?

I think we should throw all moralistic law out the fucking door, and save tens of billiions of dollars annually in the process. ZV is right, trying to protect people from themselves is sheer wasteful idiocy. This is true of drugs as well. The only reason we have a drug 'war', a war that is pointless and counterproductive, is that by making drugs illegal, we increase their value ten-fold or more, which makes them worth fighting for by thugs, gangs, and organized crime. Then we end up filling our jails and prisons with nonviolent drug offenders at a tremendous cost, and tying up millions of hours of labor and resources by our law enforcement agencies and officers, and our court system.

If we focused on ACTUAL offenders (ie, anyone who actually harms another human being or steals/damages property), and ignored those who only harm themselves, we could give people 40+ years for aggravated assault w/deadly weapon, 60+ years for rape, etc. We could quadruple sentences for legitimately harmful crimes, protect society, and leave alone those who aren't harming anyone else.

eskimospy
10-09-2008, 10:25 AM
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Originally posted by: Genx87
What an odd case. No idea how the law works regarding a person taking pictures of themselves. I still find it amazing you can be prosecuted for taking a picture of yourself.

But how can they prosecute somebody for recieving unsolicited pics?

Fascism/Communism/Stupidity.

I find that extreme-left and extreme-right types are about equally idiotic (eg; Butterbean, Steeplerot).

Logically, I don't get the prosecuting people for just receiving the messages. If that's the case, then simply being sent or being in possession of these things can nail ya. If that's the case, I think we should prosecute the prosecutor right? Because the prosecution is in possession of ZOMG child porn!

I really hope some semblance of sanity can wash over our country sometime soon, but I'm worried that this economic crisis will send us tipping over into more extreme stances of all kinds. One thing in common with almost all extremists, right or left, is their slavish authoritarianism.

I think the problem is that once your ideology goes too far off the deep end, nobody else wants to do it. Sooner or later the ideologue decides that the only way to make the world the way it needs to be is to force everyone to behave the way they want them to.

That's when the real stupidity starts.

Arkaign
10-09-2008, 10:28 AM
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Originally posted by: Genx87
What an odd case. No idea how the law works regarding a person taking pictures of themselves. I still find it amazing you can be prosecuted for taking a picture of yourself.

But how can they prosecute somebody for recieving unsolicited pics?

Fascism/Communism/Stupidity.

I find that extreme-left and extreme-right types are about equally idiotic (eg; Butterbean, Steeplerot).

Logically, I don't get the prosecuting people for just receiving the messages. If that's the case, then simply being sent or being in possession of these things can nail ya. If that's the case, I think we should prosecute the prosecutor right? Because the prosecution is in possession of ZOMG child porn!

I really hope some semblance of sanity can wash over our country sometime soon, but I'm worried that this economic crisis will send us tipping over into more extreme stances of all kinds. One thing in common with almost all extremists, right or left, is their slavish authoritarianism.

I think the problem is that once your ideology goes too far off the deep end, nobody else wants to do it. Sooner or later the ideologue decides that the only way to make the world the way it needs to be is to force everyone to behave the way they want them to.

That's when the real stupidity starts.

That's a good point as well. To add to that, in cases like Nazi Germany / Stalin's USSR, generating a lot of fear, or artificial or real crises, can abet in furthering extremist movements. In both the Soviet Union and in Hitler's Germany, only a small portion of the population actually understood and supported the political direction of the totalitarian regimes to begin with, and before long, it became nearly compulsory to do so.

Get people scared and angry enough, and they'll follow you anywhere if they think you can help or give an outlet to their rage and fear.

Saga
10-09-2008, 10:56 AM
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Originally posted by: Izusaga
I personally feel it's appropriate for this double standard to be obliterated and set a message to the underage children of today that it's NOT okay to do these things simply because you don't believe there are punishments for your actions. There ARE punishments, and they are extremely severe for the adults involved. I feel it is fully appropriate for a precedence to be set that perpetrating an act such as this is justifiable to be charged as an adult for the crime given that spending 10 minutes on any myspace or facebook account will make you realize just how common things like this are. The problem is that it's become cool and children see this as a form of expression and do not understand the real adult ramifications of their actions because they do not think they will suffer any consequences personally for putting out pictures of themselves naked. They need to realize that this is NOT okay to do with the laws in our society and they will NOT get off scott free for sending others to jail for their actions.

This and many other double standards that effect not just women but men need to be removed via punishments fit for the crime, and especially punishments fit for what can happen to others who are willing and/or unwilling accomplices to their crime.

Just wow. Do you really think this is a valuable usage of our tax money and resources?

I think we should throw all moralistic law out the fucking door, and save tens of billiions of dollars annually in the process. ZV is right, trying to protect people from themselves is sheer wasteful idiocy. This is true of drugs as well. The only reason we have a drug 'war', a war that is pointless and counterproductive, is that by making drugs illegal, we increase their value ten-fold or more, which makes them worth fighting for by thugs, gangs, and organized crime. Then we end up filling our jails and prisons with nonviolent drug offenders at a tremendous cost, and tying up millions of hours of labor and resources by our law enforcement agencies and officers, and our court system.

If we focused on ACTUAL offenders (ie, anyone who actually harms another human being or steals/damages property), and ignored those who only harm themselves, we could give people 40+ years for aggravated assault w/deadly weapon, 60+ years for rape, etc. We could quadruple sentences for legitimately harmful crimes, protect society, and leave alone those who aren't harming anyone else.

Think you're reading into what I'm trying to say rather incorrectly. I fully agree that moralistic laws are a waste of time, energy, and money. However that is an entirely different fight and a battle I never see being won in a society that has a majority of it's laws about morals based on Christianity. I personally think it's futile to fight that front in the present or near future with any headway made.

However, what I DO think is that double-standards in our legal system need to be fixed. If I can go to jail for opening an e-mail some highschool student sent me with her boobs showing - then she sure as hell should be liable to go to jail for sending it in the first place or you open up a whole slew of retarded blackmail options and legal loopholes. Thats my issue, and that is my problem, and THAT is why I feel she should be punished as an adult for these crimes.

Arkaign
10-09-2008, 11:00 AM
Originally posted by: Izusaga
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Originally posted by: Izusaga
I personally feel it's appropriate for this double standard to be obliterated and set a message to the underage children of today that it's NOT okay to do these things simply because you don't believe there are punishments for your actions. There ARE punishments, and they are extremely severe for the adults involved. I feel it is fully appropriate for a precedence to be set that perpetrating an act such as this is justifiable to be charged as an adult for the crime given that spending 10 minutes on any myspace or facebook account will make you realize just how common things like this are. The problem is that it's become cool and children see this as a form of expression and do not understand the real adult ramifications of their actions because they do not think they will suffer any consequences personally for putting out pictures of themselves naked. They need to realize that this is NOT okay to do with the laws in our society and they will NOT get off scott free for sending others to jail for their actions.

This and many other double standards that effect not just women but men need to be removed via punishments fit for the crime, and especially punishments fit for what can happen to others who are willing and/or unwilling accomplices to their crime.

Just wow. Do you really think this is a valuable usage of our tax money and resources?

I think we should throw all moralistic law out the fucking door, and save tens of billiions of dollars annually in the process. ZV is right, trying to protect people from themselves is sheer wasteful idiocy. This is true of drugs as well. The only reason we have a drug 'war', a war that is pointless and counterproductive, is that by making drugs illegal, we increase their value ten-fold or more, which makes them worth fighting for by thugs, gangs, and organized crime. Then we end up filling our jails and prisons with nonviolent drug offenders at a tremendous cost, and tying up millions of hours of labor and resources by our law enforcement agencies and officers, and our court system.

If we focused on ACTUAL offenders (ie, anyone who actually harms another human being or steals/damages property), and ignored those who only harm themselves, we could give people 40+ years for aggravated assault w/deadly weapon, 60+ years for rape, etc. We could quadruple sentences for legitimately harmful crimes, protect society, and leave alone those who aren't harming anyone else.

Think you're reading into what I'm trying to say rather incorrectly. I fully agree that moralistic laws are a waste of time, energy, and money. However that is an entirely different fight and a battle I never see being won in a society that has a majority of it's laws about morals based on Christianity. I personally think it's futile to fight that front in the present or near future with any headway made.

However, what I DO think is that double-standards in our legal system need to be fixed. If I can go to jail for opening an e-mail some highschool student sent me with her boobs showing - then she sure as hell should be liable to go to jail for sending it in the first place or you open up a whole slew of retarded blackmail options and legal loopholes. Thats my issue, and that is my problem, and THAT is why I feel she should be punished as an adult for these crimes.

I agree with your sentiment, but think that it's a failure that you'd be put into that position in the first place.

I hate how people extrapolate a bunch of moralistic garbage based upon supposed 'Christianity'. Go and read the words of Christ, I doubt he had anything to say about a 15-year-old showing her tatas on a crappy cell phone pic to other students. This is why I love the Gideon's Bibles with the words of Christ in red. Whether or not you believe he was a divine entity, he had a lot of wisdom and kindness to share, and VERY little of that is reflected in our supposed 'Christian' society.

Jaskalas
10-09-2008, 11:02 AM
The charge is ridiculous.

A modern day witch hunt.

Muse
10-09-2008, 11:07 AM
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
The charge is ridiculous.

A modern day witch hunt.

"The Nakedness of woman is the work of God." - William Blake

Also by Blake, and relevant:

"Prisons are build with bricks of law, brothels with bricks of religion."

dmcowen674
10-09-2008, 11:13 AM
Originally posted by: Pepsei
what do you guys think about Sally Mann? she's a photographer, from Virginia, with published books, some with her nude daughters.


At Twelve: Portraits of Young Women (http://www.amazon.com/At-Twelve-Portraits-Young-Women/dp/0893813303/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1223564297&sr=8-3)

This woman is in prison right?

Saga
10-09-2008, 11:13 AM
Originally posted by: Arkaign

I agree with your sentiment, but think that it's a failure that you'd be put into that position in the first place.

I hate how people extrapolate a bunch of moralistic garbage based upon supposed 'Christianity'. Go and read the words of Christ, I doubt he had anything to say about a 15-year-old showing her tatas on a crappy cell phone pic to other students. This is why I love the Gideon's Bibles with the words of Christ in red. Whether or not you believe he was a divine entity, he had a lot of wisdom and kindness to share, and VERY little of that is reflected in our supposed 'Christian' society.

Perhaps. And I admit that the majority of what I said is simply personal observation based upon the beliefs at the time that the constitution and the majority of our governing laws were formed - and the fact that their morals came from their religion played a significant role in this. Sort of an issue of cause and effect, though I fully admit this to be uneducated biased speculation on my part.

I feel strongly for this law because at one point in my early life (19) I was blackmailed electronically by an underage (17) girl in an effort to extort attention, money, and who knows what else. In the end, she broke down and confessed to making everything up and took responsibility for her actions and the case was dropped completely in my favor. However, had she not had a magical strike of conscious the reality is I would probably still be serving a jail sentence for contributing to the corruption of a minor under FALSE allegations from an emotional lovestruck girl who wanted to hurt me for breaking her heart.

I had a very close call and the only thing I did to deserve it was to end a relationship like a man, without cheating, trash talking, friend ruining, or anything associated with your usual breakup drama. I can only imagine just how many people are sitting in jail right now having not been so lucky as me, and it absolutely infuriates me.

I am now a professional in the workforce with a beautiful fiance, a great job, and half my income going to savings for my future home. With a false felony on my record that never would have happened and I would be lucky to have a job as a gas station cleric.

There are good reasons to feel strongly about double-standards and the legal favoritism of women when there are so many people who are unjustly punished simply because of our backward assed laws.

waggy
10-09-2008, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by: Izusaga
However, what I DO think is that double-standards in our legal system need to be fixed. If I can go to jail for opening an e-mail some highschool student sent me with her boobs showing - then she sure as hell should be liable to go to jail for sending it in the first place or you open up a whole slew of retarded blackmail options and legal loopholes. Thats my issue, and that is my problem, and THAT is why I feel she should be punished as an adult for these crimes.

i can agree with that. if the people who recieved it (with or without asking) are going to be charged i have no trouble with her getting charged.

odds are the charged against the girl will be thrown out. but the charges against the people who recieved it will not. i really don't see how this is fair or just.

personally the whole mess should be dropped. charges against the girl and the people that recieved them.

dmcowen674
10-09-2008, 11:24 AM
Originally posted by: Izusaga

I feel strongly for this law because at one point in my early life (19) I was blackmailed electronically by an underage (17) girl in an effort to extort attention, money, and who knows what else.

In the end, she broke down and confessed to making everything up and took responsibility for her actions and the case was dropped completely in my favor. However, had she not had a magical strike of conscious the reality is I would probably still be serving a jail sentence for contributing to the corruption of a minor under FALSE allegations from an emotional lovestruck girl who wanted to hurt me for breaking her heart.

I had a very close call and the only thing I did to deserve it was to end a relationship like a man, without cheating, trash talking, friend ruining, or anything associated with your usual breakup drama. I can only imagine just how many people are sitting in jail right now having not been so lucky as me, and it absolutely infuriates me.

I am now a professional in the workforce with a beautiful fiance, a great job, and half my income going to savings for my future home. With a false felony on my record that never would have happened and I would be lucky to have a job as a gas station cleric.

There are good reasons to feel strongly about double-standards and the legal favoritism of women when there are so many people who are unjustly punished simply because of our backward assed laws.

Glad you survived the ordeal.

waggy
10-09-2008, 11:25 AM
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Pepsei
what do you guys think about Sally Mann? she's a photographer, from Virginia, with published books, some with her nude daughters.


At Twelve: Portraits of Young Women (http://www.amazon.com/At-Twelve-Portraits-Young-Women/dp/0893813303/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1223564297&sr=8-3)

This woman is in prison right?

doubt it. stuff like this is considered "art". there is also a famous photographer that takes pictures of nude girls from 6-18 and has his books in bookstores.

Robor
10-09-2008, 11:33 AM
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Case in point, a girl is spreading CHILD PORN and the resident liberals can't see beyond "she did it herself" to see the damage to society it causes as well as to HERSELF in a few years when she's a little less insane.

I seriously don't know how some of you conservatives can stomache coming to this forum so much, it fills me with dispair to see this kind of evil and hatred for law and order on parade each day.

Door >>>>>>>

And you can take your moral superiority with you.

Arkaign
10-09-2008, 11:38 AM
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Case in point, a girl is spreading CHILD PORN and the resident liberals can't see beyond "she did it herself" to see the damage to society it causes as well as to HERSELF in a few years when she's a little less insane.

I seriously don't know how some of you conservatives can stomache coming to this forum so much, it fills me with dispair to see this kind of evil and hatred for law and order on parade each day.

Door >>>>>>>

And you can take your moral superiority with you.

No doubt. I'm a classical conservative, but I know the difference between logical law to protect society from legitimate threats (criminals who use violence, who rape, and those that steal), instead of moralistic B.S. like this.

Keep the jail/prison/court resources open for REAL criminals, and put them there for REAL time.

What's better?

Giving someone 10 years for armed robbery
Giving someone else 10 years for having some drugs
Giving someone else 10 years for getting sent dirty pics of a 15yo
Giving someone else 10 years for sending dirty pics of a 15yo

or

Giving someone 40 years for armed robbery, don't waste $$$/time/resources on the others.

Robor
10-09-2008, 11:40 AM
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: yllus
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: eskimospy


Butterbean voiced support for these charges being brought against the girl, therefore it is reasonable to believe that he thinks a 15 year old should be prosecuted for taking nude pictures of herself.

i didn't see this:
it's pretty vile when a 15 yr old gets busted for sending her nudes out over the internetz
as voicing support for her getting busted. maybe your trolldar is better than mine.

I guess I've been observing Butterbean for quite awhile, National Geographic style. He absolutely hates Obama and the ACLU, and he's got serious mental problems when it comes to sex. That's how I knew he was being sarcastic.

lol

I think Butterbean should get a custom facepalm avatar for this forum.

I almost spit out my chicken and rice. Seriously. :laugh:

Vic
10-09-2008, 11:41 AM
Well at least they're not trying her as an adult. :P

RightIsWrong
10-09-2008, 11:48 AM
Originally posted by: Zorba
Just wait, it'll be illegal for teenagers to masturbate. They'll be charged with child molestation.

Winnar of the best post in this thread!

Muse
10-09-2008, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by: Butterbean
Originally posted by: LordSegan
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,434645,00.html

What the FUCK?!

This country is going to HELL.




Word - it's pretty vile when a 15 yr old gets busted for sending her nudes out over the internetz. Obama and ACLU will fix this


I'm hoping Obama and the ACLU will fix more than that. Communication rights have been eroded immensely in the last 25 years in the USA. I work at a college radio station and thousands records we used to play routinely can no longer be played for fear of immense disastrous penalties. There are the 7 deadly words (let's see... fuck, shit, tit, asshole, cocksucker, motherfucker, one I forget), and content sufficiently (what's that?) suggestive of sexual and excratory functions. Used to be we could play most of that stuff, but just couldn't mouth them on mic. Now, it's paranoia city. We had a band interview on the radio a couple weeks ago and the guy was having his hand slapped repeatedly. Finally, he said "this station is making me lame." I want the Republicans out of there.

Muse
10-09-2008, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by: jpeyton
This is typical high school teenage naughtiness.

This prosecutor should be hanged for his world-record prudish nature.

Originally posted by: Butterbean
Word - it's pretty vile when a 15 yr old gets busted for sending her nudes out over the internetz. Obama and ACLU will fix this
I hope so. What kind of world do we live in when teenage boys can't see some titties?

:thumbsup:

SP33Demon
10-09-2008, 02:09 PM
It's Ohio, what do you expect?

chrisho
10-09-2008, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
"A prosecutor says Licking County authorities also considering charges for students who received the photos."

Nice. Not only does she get prosecuted for taking nude photos of herself, but they're considering prosecuting people who received them as well? Hmmm, that gives me an idea...

Hey kids! Having problems with bullies at school? Don't sweat it! Simply take nude pictures of yourself, send them to the bully, preferably in as many ways possible (send digital copies to the bully's cell phone and e-mail, send hard copies through the mail, and, if possible, try to recreate said photo in Sharpie on the bully's face). Guess what? That bully is now a registered sex offender! Sure, you may be get beat up; you may even spend some time in jail. But that bully is going to brandished a pervert for the rest of his life. You win!

This country is absolutely fucking retarded when it comes to anything regarding sexuality.

Actually you hit the nail on the head. The real problem is that distribution could be done so that specific people could be targeted. Think about it, someone purposely sends you these pics from an anonymous account. You get it, delete it immediately when you see what it really is. Guess what, knock on door, your cellphone/net records are under subpoena revealing you had it in your possession and worse opened it.

OutHouse
10-09-2008, 11:30 PM
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Pepsei
what do you guys think about Sally Mann? she's a photographer, from Virginia, with published books, some with her nude daughters.


At Twelve: Portraits of Young Women (http://www.amazon.com/At-Twelve-Portraits-Young-Women/dp/0893813303/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1223564297&sr=8-3)

This woman is in prison right?

nope its art. which raises the question..... what if this girl who took pictures of HERSELF and distributed them HERSELF said it was art? would that fly? if not why does and how does Sally Mann get away with it?

read the reviews.

"[Mann's photographs] suggest that the camera is as adept at depicting the desires of the subconscious as it is in rendering the shapes of everyday life."--Andy Grundberg, The New York Times

"[Sally Mann] makes pictures of children-- luminously beautiful black-and-white images of mysteriously elfin children around [her] rural home in Lexington, Virginia. These are riveting, enigmatic narrative images...."--Ken Johnson, Art in America

"Sally Mann continues to probe the intimate life of her family and come up with startling, disquieting revelations. Mann's extraordinary picture of her nude daughter suspended like a shimmering white fish on a porch with unconcerned adults resonates in your mind like a dream."--Vince Aletti, The Village Voice

"The photographs are beautiful and strange, like a dream of childhood in the summer. They are not your usual pictures of the children to send to the grandparents; they are pictures to send to the Museum of Modern Art."--Janet Malcolm, The New York Review of Books

"Immediate Family, which was published in 1990, must be counted as one of the great photograph books of our time. It is a singularly powerful evocation of childhood from within and without, tender and vertiginous and scary, employing a large photographic vocabulary to render precise ambiguities. Mann [constructs] a style that is much more far-ranging than the average contemporary photographer would permit him or herself, and yet identifiable and cohesive."--Luc Sante, The New Republic
-- Review

DrPizza
10-10-2008, 12:04 AM
At least one person in this thread mentioned that they have a daughter. Here's a question: would you be just fine with it if boy after boy started sending her nude pictures of themselves? Or, might you complain? I know that if I had a daughter, I would complain. And recently, a friend's daughter received pictures from an 18 year old who took pictures of himself and sent them to her (with some rather vulgar language.) That person spent about a month in county jail. I wasn't disappointed in the outcome in the very least. (edit: I should point out that his actions targeted several 14 and 15 year old girls, and there was a bit more too it; sort of stalkerish behavior, but no contact.)

However back to the case in this thread, do you people actually think that she's going to be convicted of this & actually classified as a sexual offender? Morons, if you think so. But, what else was the D.A. going to charge her with? I'm sure it'll be plea bargained to a slap on the wrist, but will send the message to the students that sending nude pictures of themselves to other people *might* just get them in a bit of trouble. Maybe it'll be enough to keep some of them from making what could turn out to be rather stupid decisions.

Some of you people really don't seem to be able to make consistent responses. I'm sure that 5 threads from now, when a 15 year old does something that you agree is wrong, you'll be asking for the heads of their parents on a silver platter because it's obviously due to poor parenting. Well, personally, I try to do a pretty good job of parenting. My sons are older now, but if they started receiving nude photos when they were younger, and I found out about it, you can guarantee that I would ask that something be done to address the problem.

scruffypup
10-10-2008, 12:43 AM
Originally posted by: DrPizza
At least one person in this thread mentioned that they have a daughter. Here's a question: would you be just fine with it if boy after boy started sending her nude pictures of themselves? Or, might you complain? I know that if I had a daughter, I would complain. And recently, a friend's daughter received pictures from an 18 year old who took pictures of himself and sent them to her (with some rather vulgar language.) That person spent about a month in county jail. I wasn't disappointed in the outcome in the very least. (edit: I should point out that his actions targeted several 14 and 15 year old girls, and there was a bit more too it; sort of stalkerish behavior, but no contact.)

However back to the case in this thread, do you people actually think that she's going to be convicted of this & actually classified as a sexual offender? Morons, if you think so. But, what else was the D.A. going to charge her with? I'm sure it'll be plea bargained to a slap on the wrist, but will send the message to the students that sending nude pictures of themselves to other people *might* just get them in a bit of trouble. Maybe it'll be enough to keep some of them from making what could turn out to be rather stupid decisions.

Some of you people really don't seem to be able to make consistent responses. I'm sure that 5 threads from now, when a 15 year old does something that you agree is wrong, you'll be asking for the heads of their parents on a silver platter because it's obviously due to poor parenting. Well, personally, I try to do a pretty good job of parenting. My sons are older now, but if they started receiving nude photos when they were younger, and I found out about it, you can guarantee that I would ask that something be done to address the problem.

Thanks for some reality check, Izusaga and Duwelon also make good points.

I think that many in here who say this is wrong to go after her, have no kids and are barely done being teens themselves. Views of things change once you have kids and true responsibilities.

Now I am sure that even though she is being charged with a felony we can all pretty much assume she will not be given the max on this. I would like to see these things a crime and prosecutors to go after these teens, with technology progressing at a faster rate than we can keep up with in how to utilize techonology while maintaining morality and responsibility in our society we need to think about how to solve these issues. Teens already feel they are entitled to the world without work, that they can do whatever without consequence. We all experienced some of that as a kid, but it is way overboard in today's society.

Personally I would like to see a new category of misdemeanor charge to deal with these incidents, something that can be destroyed with the juvie record and not follow the person around first of all since kids do make mistakes. I would like to see community service included so the kids have less time to do stupid stuff and do something useful,... the last thing a teen likes is to be made to have to use that extra time they waste towards something boring, like picking up trash or dealing with elderly, etc. I would like them to have to attend some classes on self esteem, pregnancy, etc. The charge could have different levels depending on how the pictures are used. If they are sent to other teens with harmful intent, or redistributed as such. For instance, a boyfriend taking a picture with permission of his girlfriend, they breakup and he distributes,... I could also see cival lawsuits happening.

Now as far as a person taking a picture of themselves without distribution, there should be no penalty, since noone would know. Then again without the distribution, I don't think this girl would have been in trouble in the first place!

eskimospy
10-10-2008, 12:58 AM
It has nothing to do with having kids or not. I'm quite old enough to know the difference and I have quite a few friends with kids. Would it be a bad thing if some kid was sending naked pictures around? Sure. That's something for the parents to handle though, not the DA.

If you think that some girl acting like an idiot with her cell phone deserves criminal prosecution... I don't know what to tell you. I think that's absolutely insane. What have we come to when we need the government to come in and intervene if a girl is acting like a slut?

Control your own children.

OutHouse
10-10-2008, 01:19 AM
Originally posted by: DrPizza
At least one person in this thread mentioned that they have a daughter. Here's a question: would you be just fine with it if boy after boy started sending her nude pictures of themselves? Or, might you complain? I know that if I had a daughter, I would complain. And recently, a friend's daughter received pictures from an 18 year old who took pictures of himself and sent them to her (with some rather vulgar language.) That person spent about a month in county jail. I wasn't disappointed in the outcome in the very least. (edit: I should point out that his actions targeted several 14 and 15 year old girls, and there was a bit more too it; sort of stalkerish behavior, but no contact.)

However back to the case in this thread, do you people actually think that she's going to be convicted of this & actually classified as a sexual offender? Morons, if you think so. But, what else was the D.A. going to charge her with? I'm sure it'll be plea bargained to a slap on the wrist, but will send the message to the students that sending nude pictures of themselves to other people *might* just get them in a bit of trouble. Maybe it'll be enough to keep some of them from making what could turn out to be rather stupid decisions.

Some of you people really don't seem to be able to make consistent responses. I'm sure that 5 threads from now, when a 15 year old does something that you agree is wrong, you'll be asking for the heads of their parents on a silver platter because it's obviously due to poor parenting. Well, personally, I try to do a pretty good job of parenting. My sons are older now, but if they started receiving nude photos when they were younger, and I found out about it, you can guarantee that I would ask that something be done to address the problem.

my response to my son would be the same. and as eskimoPie pointed out this is a situation where the parents should handle not a DA. I totally agree with that.

also you say she wont get convicted.. well maybe, maybe not. remember that kid in Georgia that got 10+ years in the state prison for getting a blowjob from a girl 2 years younger than him.... with a what we call "sex crimes" today you never know how far some over eager egotistical DA will take it.

scruffypup
10-10-2008, 03:51 AM
Originally posted by: eskimospy
It has nothing to do with having kids or not. I'm quite old enough to know the difference and I have quite a few friends with kids. Would it be a bad thing if some kid was sending naked pictures around? Sure. That's something for the parents to handle though, not the DA.

If you think that some girl acting like an idiot with her cell phone deserves criminal prosecution... I don't know what to tell you. I think that's absolutely insane. What have we come to when we need the government to come in and intervene if a girl is acting like a slut?

Control your own children.

I do teach my children right and they aren't the ones I am worried about doing this. This type of situation has become very common now with teens and cell phones. I don't want my daughter or son to be "exposed" to this type of behavior from others. We all know many parents don't teach their children, so what am I to do to protect my children from those children? Since a big problem with our society is lack of responsibility for one's actions, we are then forced as a society to institute something to show that certain actions are not acceptable. This is why laws get created in the first place.

I think there is very good reason to have criminal prosecution here. I could sue the parents of that child, but what lesson does the child then learn? Why should we not punish that behavior that if not corrected, would then most likely lead to other choices that are poor decisions down the road?

You say control your own children, but obviously there is that lack going on,... which is why you even hear about the families from Iowa dropping off their teens in Nebraska since their safe haven law has no age limit,... that is a perfect example of parents not taking responsibility for their kids,... and I am supposed to be ok with your statement of saying the parents should control them? It is wishful thinking,...

Engineer
10-10-2008, 05:17 AM
Originally posted by: scruffypup
Originally posted by: eskimospy
It has nothing to do with having kids or not. I'm quite old enough to know the difference and I have quite a few friends with kids. Would it be a bad thing if some kid was sending naked pictures around? Sure. That's something for the parents to handle though, not the DA.

If you think that some girl acting like an idiot with her cell phone deserves criminal prosecution... I don't know what to tell you. I think that's absolutely insane. What have we come to when we need the government to come in and intervene if a girl is acting like a slut?

Control your own children.

I do teach my children right and they aren't the ones I am worried about doing this. This type of situation has become very common now with teens and cell phones. I don't want my daughter or son to be "exposed" to this type of behavior from others. We all know many parents don't teach their children, so what am I to do to protect my children from those children? Since a big problem with our society is lack of responsibility for one's actions, we are then forced as a society to institute something to show that certain actions are not acceptable. This is why laws get created in the first place.

I think there is very good reason to have criminal prosecution here. I could sue the parents of that child, but what lesson does the child then learn? Why should we not punish that behavior that if not corrected, would then most likely lead to other choices that are poor decisions down the road?

You say control your own children, but obviously there is that lack going on,... which is why you even hear about the families from Iowa dropping off their teens in Nebraska since their safe haven law has no age limit,... that is a perfect example of parents not taking responsibility for their kids,... and I am supposed to be ok with your statement of saying the parents should control them? It is wishful thinking,...



While she should be punished (preferrably by her parents), to charge this girl with child porn and to possibly have her convicted and force her to be a registered sex offender if fucking insane and wrong. Too goddamn many people trying to force their morality on others in this thread. Bullshit.

People need to parent their own fucking children and the DA needs this case shoved up his moral ass. Fucking asshole!

And for the record, I have a 14 (nearly 15) year old girl and I think it should be my responsibility to kick her ass for something like this, not the damn DA.

Red Dawn
10-10-2008, 05:49 AM
Originally posted by: Engineer
Too goddamn many people trying to force their morality on others in this thread. Bullshit.

Ayup. For the life of me I can't see how a minor took advantage of herself, isn't that what child Pornography laws are all about, a minor being sexually exploited?

Deadtrees
10-10-2008, 06:58 AM
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: scruffypup
Originally posted by: eskimospy
It has nothing to do with having kids or not. I'm quite old enough to know the difference and I have quite a few friends with kids. Would it be a bad thing if some kid was sending naked pictures around? Sure. That's something for the parents to handle though, not the DA.

If you think that some girl acting like an idiot with her cell phone deserves criminal prosecution... I don't know what to tell you. I think that's absolutely insane. What have we come to when we need the government to come in and intervene if a girl is acting like a slut?

Control your own children.

I do teach my children right and they aren't the ones I am worried about doing this. This type of situation has become very common now with teens and cell phones. I don't want my daughter or son to be "exposed" to this type of behavior from others. We all know many parents don't teach their children, so what am I to do to protect my children from those children? Since a big problem with our society is lack of responsibility for one's actions, we are then forced as a society to institute something to show that certain actions are not acceptable. This is why laws get created in the first place.

I think there is very good reason to have criminal prosecution here. I could sue the parents of that child, but what lesson does the child then learn? Why should we not punish that behavior that if not corrected, would then most likely lead to other choices that are poor decisions down the road?

You say control your own children, but obviously there is that lack going on,... which is why you even hear about the families from Iowa dropping off their teens in Nebraska since their safe haven law has no age limit,... that is a perfect example of parents not taking responsibility for their kids,... and I am supposed to be ok with your statement of saying the parents should control them? It is wishful thinking,...



While she should be punished (preferrably by her parents), to charge this girl with child porn and to possibly have her convicted and force her to be a registered sex offender if fucking insane and wrong. Too goddamn many people trying to force their morality on others in this thread. Bullshit.

People need to parent their own fucking children and the DA needs this case shoved up his moral ass. Fucking asshole!


:thumbsup:

Right on the point!

dmcowen674
10-10-2008, 08:09 AM
Originally posted by: Engineer
to charge this girl with child porn and to possibly have her convicted and force her to be a registered sex offender if fucking insane and wrong.



Oh come on.

By doing that will ensure the she can't stray again the rest of her life from the Republican doctrine.

Mission Accomplished

shira
10-10-2008, 08:18 AM
Originally posted by: eskimospy
It has nothing to do with having kids or not. I'm quite old enough to know the difference and I have quite a few friends with kids. Would it be a bad thing if some kid was sending naked pictures around? Sure. That's something for the parents to handle though, not the DA.

If you think that some girl acting like an idiot with her cell phone deserves criminal prosecution... I don't know what to tell you. I think that's absolutely insane. What have we come to when we need the government to come in and intervene if a girl is acting like a slut?

Control your own children.

If a girl struts stark naked in front of her boyfriend, then has sex with him: No problem.

If the girl sends a nude pictures of herself to the same boyfriend, who willingly views them: Felony for both.

Yeah, these laws make sense.

Engineer
10-10-2008, 08:26 AM
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: eskimospy
It has nothing to do with having kids or not. I'm quite old enough to know the difference and I have quite a few friends with kids. Would it be a bad thing if some kid was sending naked pictures around? Sure. That's something for the parents to handle though, not the DA.

If you think that some girl acting like an idiot with her cell phone deserves criminal prosecution... I don't know what to tell you. I think that's absolutely insane. What have we come to when we need the government to come in and intervene if a girl is acting like a slut?

Control your own children.

If a girl struts stark naked in front of her boyfriend, then has sex with him: No problem.

If the girl sends a nude pictures of herself to the same boyfriend, who willingly views them: Felony for both.

Yeah, these laws make sense.

No they fucking don't. I really hope that the bolded statement is sarcasm, right?

Anubis
10-10-2008, 08:30 AM
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: eskimospy
It has nothing to do with having kids or not. I'm quite old enough to know the difference and I have quite a few friends with kids. Would it be a bad thing if some kid was sending naked pictures around? Sure. That's something for the parents to handle though, not the DA.

If you think that some girl acting like an idiot with her cell phone deserves criminal prosecution... I don't know what to tell you. I think that's absolutely insane. What have we come to when we need the government to come in and intervene if a girl is acting like a slut?

Control your own children.

If a girl struts stark naked in front of her boyfriend, then has sex with him: No problem.

If the girl sends a nude pictures of herself to the same boyfriend, who willingly views them: Felony for both.

Yeah, these laws make sense.

No they fucking don't. I really hope that the bolded statement is sarcasm, right?




if you could not tell that was sarcasm i weap for you

Engineer
10-10-2008, 08:33 AM
Originally posted by: Anubis

if you could not tell that was sarcasm i weap for you


I suspected it was. After being around some of the nuts in P&N for a few years, you never can tell.

AnitaPeterson
10-10-2008, 11:20 AM
Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
"A prosecutor says Licking County authorities also considering charges for students who received the photos."

Nice. Not only does she get prosecuted for taking nude photos of herself, but they're considering prosecuting people who received them as well? Hmmm, that gives me an idea...

Hey kids! Having problems with bullies at school? Don't sweat it! Simply take nude pictures of yourself, send them to the bully, preferably in as many ways possible (send digital copies to the bully's cell phone and e-mail, send hard copies through the mail, and, if possible, try to recreate said photo in Sharpie on the bully's face). Guess what? That bully is now a registered sex offender! Sure, you may be get beat up; you may even spend some time in jail. But that bully is going to brandished a pervert for the rest of his life. You win!

This country is absolutely fucking retarded when it comes to anything regarding sexuality.

You know, that's pretty good... I mean seriously... a nice way of using the system to do what it was supposed to do from the beginning, were it not all twisted and stupid!

eleison
10-10-2008, 11:47 AM
Originally posted by: Citrix
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Pepsei
what do you guys think about Sally Mann? she's a photographer, from Virginia, with published books, some with her nude daughters.


At Twelve: Portraits of Young Women (http://www.amazon.com/At-Twelve-Portraits-Young-Women/dp/0893813303/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1223564297&sr=8-3)

This woman is in prison right?

nope its art. which raises the question..... what if this girl who took pictures of HERSELF and distributed them HERSELF said it was art? would that fly? if not why does and how does Sally Mann get away with it?

read the reviews.

"[Mann's photographs] suggest that the camera is as adept at depicting the desires of the subconscious as it is in rendering the shapes of everyday life."--Andy Grundberg, The New York Times

"[Sally Mann] makes pictures of children-- luminously beautiful black-and-white images of mysteriously elfin children around [her] rural home in Lexington, Virginia. These are riveting, enigmatic narrative images...."--Ken Johnson, Art in America

"Sally Mann continues to probe the intimate life of her family and come up with startling, disquieting revelations. Mann's extraordinary picture of her nude daughter suspended like a shimmering white fish on a porch with unconcerned adults resonates in your mind like a dream."--Vince Aletti, The Village Voice

"The photographs are beautiful and strange, like a dream of childhood in the summer. They are not your usual pictures of the children to send to the grandparents; they are pictures to send to the Museum of Modern Art."--Janet Malcolm, The New York Review of Books

"Immediate Family, which was published in 1990, must be counted as one of the great photograph books of our time. It is a singularly powerful evocation of childhood from within and without, tender and vertiginous and scary, employing a large photographic vocabulary to render precise ambiguities. Mann [constructs] a style that is much more far-ranging than the average contemporary photographer would permit him or herself, and yet identifiable and cohesive."--Luc Sante, The New Republic
-- Review

Wow.. my mind is still trying to wrap around this one. I thought all naked pictures of underage teens were illegal and having them is risk for going to "pound me in the a55 prisson" for a long time.

DrPizza
10-10-2008, 04:39 PM
Originally posted by: Engineer
While she should be punished (preferrably by her parents), to charge this girl with child porn and to possibly have her convicted and force her to be a registered sex offender if fucking insane and wrong. Too goddamn many people trying to force their morality on others in this thread. Bullshit.

People need to parent their own fucking children and the DA needs this case shoved up his moral ass. Fucking asshole!

And for the record, I have a 14 (nearly 15) year old girl and I think it should be my responsibility to kick her ass for something like this, not the damn DA.

And, for the record, could you tell us what you're going to do when 14, 15, 16, and 17 year old boys in her school send her pornographic pictures of themselves and ask her to perform all sorts of favors for them? Are you going to ignore it and leave the issue up to the parents of those boys to deal with? When you tell the parents of those boys what their kids did, and they say "mind your own business, we see nothing wrong with it. It's just kids being kids." Are you going to let it go? What if your daughter was 10 and the boy was 17 1/2? Are you going to mind then?

AstroManLuca
10-10-2008, 04:52 PM
Originally posted by: DrPizza
Originally posted by: Engineer
While she should be punished (preferrably by her parents), to charge this girl with child porn and to possibly have her convicted and force her to be a registered sex offender if fucking insane and wrong. Too goddamn many people trying to force their morality on others in this thread. Bullshit.

People need to parent their own fucking children and the DA needs this case shoved up his moral ass. Fucking asshole!

And for the record, I have a 14 (nearly 15) year old girl and I think it should be my responsibility to kick her ass for something like this, not the damn DA.

And, for the record, could you tell us what you're going to do when 14, 15, 16, and 17 year old boys in her school send her pornographic pictures of themselves and ask her to perform all sorts of favors for them? Are you going to ignore it and leave the issue up to the parents of those boys to deal with? When you tell the parents of those boys what their kids did, and they say "mind your own business, we see nothing wrong with it. It's just kids being kids." Are you going to let it go? What if your daughter was 10 and the boy was 17 1/2? Are you going to mind then?

That's an entirely different issue and it would fall under sexual harassment or something like that. Possibly also something along the lines of supplying pornography to a minor (even though the supplier is also a minor, I guess?). I think it's insane that an underage person can take pictures of him or herself and be treated like a pedophile by the courts. It's stupid and wrong.

Engineer
10-10-2008, 04:56 PM
Originally posted by: DrPizza
Originally posted by: Engineer
While she should be punished (preferrably by her parents), to charge this girl with child porn and to possibly have her convicted and force her to be a registered sex offender if fucking insane and wrong. Too goddamn many people trying to force their morality on others in this thread. Bullshit.

People need to parent their own fucking children and the DA needs this case shoved up his moral ass. Fucking asshole!

And for the record, I have a 14 (nearly 15) year old girl and I think it should be my responsibility to kick her ass for something like this, not the damn DA.

And, for the record, could you tell us what you're going to do when 14, 15, 16, and 17 year old boys in her school send her pornographic pictures of themselves and ask her to perform all sorts of favors for them? Are you going to ignore it and leave the issue up to the parents of those boys to deal with? When you tell the parents of those boys what their kids did, and they say "mind your own business, we see nothing wrong with it. It's just kids being kids." Are you going to let it go? What if your daughter was 10 and the boy was 17 1/2? Are you going to mind then?

Just what are the rules if those people expose themselves "live" instead of via digital delivery? Can I have them charged for live exposure as "kiddie porn" or would it be indecent or lewd acts or even "sexual harassment". You are crossing into the realm of sexual harassment IMO. I can see your point you are trying to make but if two 15 year olds show each other in life it's not a felony but to take a photo and send it via a phone suddenly makes it a felony and the ability to brand that child as a sexual offender for life?

You are also trying to play onto "my emotion" by trying to bring my daughters into this. I still don't think that what you propose is considered "kiddie porn". As I stated above, the girl should be punished and againk, preferrably by her own parents. If new laws that are less harsh need to be designed, I'll take a look but I will not sit by and agree that she should be charged with a felony and branded a sexual offender for what she did.

Using the laws to protect the very kids that it's going to destroy for a lifetime is just wrong....again, fucking wrong. Let's play your game...if a boy that's 18 sends my daughter of 8 a nude photo of himself, can I charge him with child porn? If not, why?

DrPizza
10-10-2008, 05:20 PM
You win. You're right - it should be something along the lines of indecency or lewd acts. I simply couldn't think of another charge that would fit the situation.

L00PY
10-11-2008, 09:10 AM
Originally posted by: Duwelon
I'm sorry, let me try again: What the hell do you mean 'just her nude body'? If it's her nude body it's child pornography, unless it's something like that that Hannah Montana girl on some magazine awhile ago where no privates were revealed, is that what you meant?
Since all nude representations of teenagers' bodies are porn, we ought to start by removing child pornography from our classrooms. Clearly, it's a liberal lie that "David is a masterpiece of Renaissance sculpture sculpted by Michelangelo." The truth that since it's a nude body of a teenager, especially one where the privates are visible, it's child pornography.

Or maybe nudity doesn't equal pornography? Clothed images can be much more lewd and lascivious than nude ones. "But he's got clothes on" isn't a defense for child pornography charges.

PingSpike
10-11-2008, 10:43 AM
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Case in point, a girl is spreading CHILD PORN and the resident liberals can't see beyond "she did it herself" to see the damage to society it causes as well as to HERSELF in a few years when she's a little less insane.

I seriously don't know how some of you conservatives can stomache coming to this forum so much, it fills me with dispair to see this kind of evil and hatred for law and order on parade each day.

Please explain who the victim of this crime is. Then explain who should be punished. Be specific please.

Red Dawn
10-11-2008, 10:51 AM
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Case in point, a girl is spreading CHILD PORN and the resident liberals can't see beyond "she did it herself" to see the damage to society it causes as well as to HERSELF in a few years when she's a little less insane.

I seriously don't know how some of you conservatives can stomache coming to this forum so much, it fills me with dispair to see this kind of evil and hatred for law and order on parade each day.That's because you are a hypocritical Moral Interventionist who'd go around pinning scarlet letters on people if you had your way.

L00PY
10-11-2008, 03:54 PM
Originally posted by: PingSpike
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Case in point, a girl is spreading CHILD PORN and the resident liberals can't see beyond "she did it herself" to see the damage to society it causes as well as to HERSELF in a few years when she's a little less insane.

I seriously don't know how some of you conservatives can stomache coming to this forum so much, it fills me with dispair to see this kind of evil and hatred for law and order on parade each day.

Please explain who the victim of this crime is. Then explain who should be punished. Be specific please.
The primary "victim" is the girl who took the self portraits. You could also argue that by adding to the child pornography out there, you're facilitating the victimization of future children. By punishing the individual purveyors of (child) pornography, you "protect" society as a whole from it. As such, it's the photographer who needs to be punished, albeit in this case, within juvenile court.

This type of crime in some ways is akin to the criminal act of prostitution that occurs two consenting adults. Much of the outrage that arises is due to the injury to one's sense of morality, purity, and chastity. Of course with child pornography, it's argued that as the child is not capable of making informed consent about appearing in nude photos, and the parents or government are to be the judges of what the appropriate action should be. I suppose which it ought to be (parental or governmental) depends on how serious you feel the crime is.

frostedflakes
10-11-2008, 08:55 PM
Originally posted by: L00PY
Originally posted by: PingSpike
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Case in point, a girl is spreading CHILD PORN and the resident liberals can't see beyond "she did it herself" to see the damage to society it causes as well as to HERSELF in a few years when she's a little less insane.

I seriously don't know how some of you conservatives can stomache coming to this forum so much, it fills me with dispair to see this kind of evil and hatred for law and order on parade each day.

Please explain who the victim of this crime is. Then explain who should be punished. Be specific please.
The primary "victim" is the girl who took the self portraits. You could also argue that by adding to the child pornography out there, you're facilitating the victimization of future children. By punishing the individual purveyors of (child) pornography, you "protect" society as a whole from it. As such, it's the photographer who needs to be punished, albeit in this case, within juvenile court.

This type of crime in some ways is akin to the criminal act of prostitution that occurs two consenting adults. Much of the outrage that arises is due to the injury to one's sense of morality, purity, and chastity. Of course with child pornography, it's argued that as the child is not capable of making informed consent about appearing in nude photos, and the parents or government are to be the judges of what the appropriate action should be. I suppose which it ought to be (parental or governmental) depends on how serious you feel the crime is.

I just don't think it's up to the state to regulate morality. Sure it was poor judgment by the girl, but prosecuting her just doesn't seem to be in the spirit of the law.

I also don't buy the argument about "facilitating victimization of future children." First of all, she's not a child. Second, the guys she sent the pics probably banged their 15 year old girlfriends that night. BTW, does that make them pedophiles?

It's just weird to me that people make a big deal about some girl sending around nude pics of herself, but don't seem to care (or at least think it should be dealt with by the courts) that her and many of her peers have probably already had sex.

L00PY
10-12-2008, 12:35 AM
Originally posted by: frostedflakes
I just don't think it's up to the state to regulate morality. Sure it was poor judgment by the girl, but prosecuting her just doesn't seem to be in the spirit of the law.
Unfortunately it doesn't really matter what you think because in most states there are laws in the books to regulate morality. Civil servants like that prosecutor likely swore an oath to uphold the state constitution and execute the law. If the lawmakers didn't mean to allow for prosecution in cases like these, they should have written it more narrowly.

I also don't buy the argument about "facilitating victimization of future children." First of all, she's not a child. Second, the guys she sent the pics probably banged their 15 year old girlfriends that night. BTW, does that make them pedophiles?
I don't know the girl but I do know there are many 15 year olds that definitely have the maturity of children. There are also 15 year olds out there that haven't fully undergone puberty yet. As arbitrary a standard age might be, the law tends to treat everyone under 18 as a child. And those guys would probably technically be considered ephebophiles, not pedophiles.

AstroManLuca
10-12-2008, 01:16 AM
Originally posted by: L00PY
Originally posted by: frostedflakes
I just don't think it's up to the state to regulate morality. Sure it was poor judgment by the girl, but prosecuting her just doesn't seem to be in the spirit of the law.
Unfortunately it doesn't really matter what you think because in most states there are laws in the books to regulate morality. Civil servants like that prosecutor likely swore an oath to uphold the state constitution and execute the law. If the lawmakers didn't mean to allow for prosecution in cases like these, they should have written it more narrowly.

I also don't buy the argument about "facilitating victimization of future children." First of all, she's not a child. Second, the guys she sent the pics probably banged their 15 year old girlfriends that night. BTW, does that make them pedophiles?
I don't know the girl but I do know there are many 15 year olds that definitely have the maturity of children. There are also 15 year olds out there that haven't fully undergone puberty yet. As arbitrary a standard age might be, the law tends to treat everyone under 18 as a child. And those guys would probably technically be considered ephebophiles, not pedophiles.


What if the guys are also 15 or 16 years old?

blackangst1
10-12-2008, 01:38 PM
Originally posted by: AstroManLuca
Originally posted by: L00PY
Originally posted by: frostedflakes
I just don't think it's up to the state to regulate morality. Sure it was poor judgment by the girl, but prosecuting her just doesn't seem to be in the spirit of the law.
Unfortunately it doesn't really matter what you think because in most states there are laws in the books to regulate morality. Civil servants like that prosecutor likely swore an oath to uphold the state constitution and execute the law. If the lawmakers didn't mean to allow for prosecution in cases like these, they should have written it more narrowly.

I also don't buy the argument about "facilitating victimization of future children." First of all, she's not a child. Second, the guys she sent the pics probably banged their 15 year old girlfriends that night. BTW, does that make them pedophiles?
I don't know the girl but I do know there are many 15 year olds that definitely have the maturity of children. There are also 15 year olds out there that haven't fully undergone puberty yet. As arbitrary a standard age might be, the law tends to treat everyone under 18 as a child. And those guys would probably technically be considered ephebophiles, not pedophiles.


What if the guys are also 15 or 16 years old?

Theyre pedophiles. Sex with an underage person is a pedophile.

Rainsford
10-12-2008, 01:46 PM
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: AstroManLuca
Originally posted by: L00PY
Originally posted by: frostedflakes
I just don't think it's up to the state to regulate morality. Sure it was poor judgment by the girl, but prosecuting her just doesn't seem to be in the spirit of the law.
Unfortunately it doesn't really matter what you think because in most states there are laws in the books to regulate morality. Civil servants like that prosecutor likely swore an oath to uphold the state constitution and execute the law. If the lawmakers didn't mean to allow for prosecution in cases like these, they should have written it more narrowly.

I also don't buy the argument about "facilitating victimization of future children." First of all, she's not a child. Second, the guys she sent the pics probably banged their 15 year old girlfriends that night. BTW, does that make them pedophiles?
I don't know the girl but I do know there are many 15 year olds that definitely have the maturity of children. There are also 15 year olds out there that haven't fully undergone puberty yet. As arbitrary a standard age might be, the law tends to treat everyone under 18 as a child. And those guys would probably technically be considered ephebophiles, not pedophiles.


What if the guys are also 15 or 16 years old?

Theyre pedophiles. Sex with an underage person is a pedophile.

I honestly can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. Because if you're not...wow...I guess we'll have to lock up about 50% of high school students.

Engineer
10-12-2008, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: AstroManLuca
Originally posted by: L00PY
Originally posted by: frostedflakes
I just don't think it's up to the state to regulate morality. Sure it was poor judgment by the girl, but prosecuting her just doesn't seem to be in the spirit of the law.
Unfortunately it doesn't really matter what you think because in most states there are laws in the books to regulate morality. Civil servants like that prosecutor likely swore an oath to uphold the state constitution and execute the law. If the lawmakers didn't mean to allow for prosecution in cases like these, they should have written it more narrowly.

I also don't buy the argument about "facilitating victimization of future children." First of all, she's not a child. Second, the guys she sent the pics probably banged their 15 year old girlfriends that night. BTW, does that make them pedophiles?
I don't know the girl but I do know there are many 15 year olds that definitely have the maturity of children. There are also 15 year olds out there that haven't fully undergone puberty yet. As arbitrary a standard age might be, the law tends to treat everyone under 18 as a child. And those guys would probably technically be considered ephebophiles, not pedophiles.


What if the guys are also 15 or 16 years old?

Theyre pedophiles. Sex with an underage person is a pedophile.

I sincerely hope that was sarcasm. If not, just wow...fucking wow!

blackangst1
10-12-2008, 02:14 PM
Yes it was sarcasm. We seriously need to lower AOC.

Engineer
10-12-2008, 02:21 PM
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Yes it was sarcasm. We seriously need to lower AOC.

:D

That's better. :P

Perknose
10-12-2008, 02:55 PM
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Originally posted by: eskimospy
I guess I've been observing Butterbean for quite awhile, National Geographic style. He absolutely hates Obama and the ACLU, and he's got serious mental problems when it comes to sex. That's how I knew he was being sarcastic.

And he's about the only other sane voice in my head.

Fixed. ;)

Rainsford
10-12-2008, 04:24 PM
I know it's cliche to make this argument, but honestly this kind of discussion makes me think the people getting their panties in a twist over what this girl did either don't remember being 15, or were really sexually frustrated 15 year olds. Don't get me wrong, if I could go back in time there are some things I would have done differently...but the people who think teenage sexuality is a danger to the very fabric of society sound to me like they just flew in from another planet, because they clearly weren't teenagers on THIS one.

Fern
10-12-2008, 05:13 PM
That article is mighty skimpy on facts etc.

I suspect there are relevent bits we don't know of.

While I consider the act of her photographing herself something for her parents to handle, tha act of her sending them to other juveniles is another matter.

Suppose one of the parents ended up with that stuff on their PC? (A family PC). They may have realized the potential trouble they faced. Not cool IMO.

In general, when a 15 yr old commits acts against non-family members I have no problem with police/prosecutors becoming involved.

Fern

cubeless
10-12-2008, 05:54 PM
was kind of waiting for this conversation to take a rational twist...

so now a < 18 takes pics on her cell and sends them to a teacher or you because she thinks it's funny or she's mad at you...

we are truly in a bad and getting worse place...

and i just have to add, as a parent who has been through 4 15 year olds of both sexes: anyone who thinks that a 15 year old is a rational, responsible being is just plain stupid...

the crowd who thinks they are more mature because of the greater pool of swill they have to swim through is deluded... they are just that much more conflicted and confused by all the shit...

of course that doesn't apply to all at members, though, as they are the far right side of the bell curve...

NoStateofMind
10-12-2008, 05:57 PM
There is nothing wrong with a minor taking nude pictures of themselves. The crime or law is broken when/if those pictures are given to an adult. It is the adults decision to either accept the picture (unlawfully) or to reject it (lawfully). The child is innocent in either case.

cubeless
10-12-2008, 06:02 PM
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
There is nothing wrong with a minor taking nude pictures of themselves. The crime or law is broken when/if those pictures are given to an adult. It is the adults decision to either accept the picture (unlawfully) or to reject it (lawfully). The child is innocent in either case.

huh? how do you lawfully reject it? what if you don't check your email for a couple days?

the kid is not innocent the minute she ships the pics!!! to anyone!!! maybe jail isn't the right answer, but the kid needs some correction that that is not acceptable behavior!!!

NoStateofMind
10-12-2008, 06:19 PM
Originally posted by: cubeless
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
There is nothing wrong with a minor taking nude pictures of themselves. The crime or law is broken when/if those pictures are given to an adult. It is the adults decision to either accept the picture (unlawfully) or to reject it (lawfully). The child is innocent in either case.

huh? how do you lawfully reject it? what if you don't check your email for a couple days?

Delete and contact authorities.

the kid is not innocent the minute she ships the pics!!! to anyone!!! maybe jail isn't the right answer, but the kid needs some correction that that is not acceptable behavior!!!

Taking the pics of herself, there is no law against it. Giving those pics to someone IMO is not breaking the law. The law is broken when/if it is given to an adult. It is the adults responsibility to discard it and contact authorities.

blackangst1
10-12-2008, 06:40 PM
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: cubeless
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
There is nothing wrong with a minor taking nude pictures of themselves. The crime or law is broken when/if those pictures are given to an adult. It is the adults decision to either accept the picture (unlawfully) or to reject it (lawfully). The child is innocent in either case.

huh? how do you lawfully reject it? what if you don't check your email for a couple days?

Delete and contact authorities.

the kid is not innocent the minute she ships the pics!!! to anyone!!! maybe jail isn't the right answer, but the kid needs some correction that that is not acceptable behavior!!!

Taking the pics of herself, there is no law against it. Giving those pics to someone IMO is not breaking the law. The law is broken when/if it is given to an adult. It is the adults responsibility to discard it and contact authorities.

Is is.

blackangst1
10-12-2008, 06:41 PM
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: cubeless
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
There is nothing wrong with a minor taking nude pictures of themselves. The crime or law is broken when/if those pictures are given to an adult. It is the adults decision to either accept the picture (unlawfully) or to reject it (lawfully). The child is innocent in either case.

huh? how do you lawfully reject it? what if you don't check your email for a couple days?

Delete and contact authorities.

the kid is not innocent the minute she ships the pics!!! to anyone!!! maybe jail isn't the right answer, but the kid needs some correction that that is not acceptable behavior!!!

Taking the pics of herself, there is no law against it. Giving those pics to someone IMO is not breaking the law. The law is broken when/if it is given to an adult. It is the adults responsibility to discard it and contact authorities.

Is is. Its called production, and her having it on her phone is possesion.

Legally anyway.

NoStateofMind
10-12-2008, 06:42 PM
Originally posted by: blackangst1

Is is.

Granted, its not hard to do, but you just confused the fuck out of me.

blackangst1
10-12-2008, 06:45 PM
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: blackangst1

Is is.

Granted, its not hard to do, but you just confused the fuck out of me.

I was replying to your statement "Taking the pics of herself, there is no law against it. Giving those pics to someone IMO is not breaking the law."

Which is wrong.


TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 110 > 2256.
(3) ?producing? means producing, directing, manufacturing, issuing, publishing, or advertising;
(5) ?visual depiction? includes undeveloped film and videotape, and data stored on computer disk or by electronic means which is capable of conversion into a visual image;

(8) ?child pornography? means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where?
(A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
(B) such visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
(C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct.

NoStateofMind
10-12-2008, 06:47 PM
Well that is just stupid. If I was a vain teenager and decided to take naked pics of myself and plaster them all over my wall then thats my business. This is government intrusion IMO. Those pictures are not against the law until they are in the hands of adults who know better.

NoStateofMind
10-12-2008, 06:48 PM
DP

blackangst1
10-12-2008, 06:53 PM
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Well that is just stupid. If I was a vain teenager and decided to take naked pics of myself and plaster them all over my wall then thats my business. This is government intrusion IMO. Those pictures are not against the law until they are in the hands of adults who know better.

I agree. Even then, if she sends them willingly to an adult, no law broken. I dont care if she took them, her 16 year old friend took them, or her 35 year old boyfriend took them...if its consensual, its legal. No harm no foul.


*hears whining* Yeah but if an adult took them the minor was coerced! If a minor has consensual sex with a minor thats fine but if its an adult its taking advantage!"

Horeshit.

IMHO

cubeless
10-12-2008, 07:10 PM
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Well that is just stupid. If I was a vain teenager and decided to take naked pics of myself and plaster them all over my wall then thats my business. This is government intrusion IMO. Those pictures are not against the law until they are in the hands of adults who know better.

kid doesn't own house, some adult does... adult is liable for kid...

what is the reasonable expectation that only the minor will see their own pics? so if a friend of the mom drops by and uses the bathroom and sees pics on the wall because the kid left the door open what's the move? what if the kid has friends over?

if you like looking at your self so much i have to guess that you want others to look, too...

this little girl has problems... she needs competent counselling, if that can be found...

Mr. Lennon
10-12-2008, 07:32 PM
We have now left planet Earth.

Rainsford
10-12-2008, 07:37 PM
Originally posted by: cubeless
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Well that is just stupid. If I was a vain teenager and decided to take naked pics of myself and plaster them all over my wall then thats my business. This is government intrusion IMO. Those pictures are not against the law until they are in the hands of adults who know better.

kid doesn't own house, some adult does... adult is liable for kid...

what is the reasonable expectation that only the minor will see their own pics? so if a friend of the mom drops by and uses the bathroom and sees pics on the wall because the kid left the door open what's the move? what if the kid has friends over?

if you like looking at your self so much i have to guess that you want others to look, too...

this little girl has problems... she needs competent counselling, if that can be found...



So get her some counseling...or better yet, some PARENTING. Charging her with a crime does not seem like the answer here, regardless of whether you think what she did was dumb or not.

piasabird
10-12-2008, 08:24 PM
So what if the photos were for business like she is a person that wants to be a model? It is not illegal to take a photo. Nude photography is not illegal. I have been to a museum and seen nude paintings and sculpture, even in the vatican.

OutHouse
10-12-2008, 11:53 PM
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: blackangst1

Is is.

Granted, its not hard to do, but you just confused the fuck out of me.

I was replying to your statement "Taking the pics of herself, there is no law against it. Giving those pics to someone IMO is not breaking the law."

Which is wrong.


TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 110 > 2256.
(3) ?producing? means producing, directing, manufacturing, issuing, publishing, or advertising;
(5) ?visual depiction? includes undeveloped film and videotape, and data stored on computer disk or by electronic means which is capable of conversion into a visual image;

(8) ?child pornography? means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where?
(A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
(B) such visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
(C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct.



and that is how Sally Mann gets away with taking pictures of nude kids. they are not engaged in sexual conduct. I wonder, did the girl in this story send a titty or beaver shot or much worse. by that law taking a pic of a boob or beaver is not against the law...

or am i reading it wrong

blackangst1
10-13-2008, 10:03 AM
Originally posted by: Citrix
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: blackangst1

Is is.

Granted, its not hard to do, but you just confused the fuck out of me.

I was replying to your statement "Taking the pics of herself, there is no law against it. Giving those pics to someone IMO is not breaking the law."

Which is wrong.


TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 110 > 2256.
(3) ?producing? means producing, directing, manufacturing, issuing, publishing, or advertising;
(5) ?visual depiction? includes undeveloped film and videotape, and data stored on computer disk or by electronic means which is capable of conversion into a visual image;

(8) ?child pornography? means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where?
(A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
(B) such visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
(C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct.



and that is how Sally Mann gets away with taking pictures of nude kids. they are not engaged in sexual conduct. I wonder, did the girl in this story send a titty or beaver shot or much worse. by that law taking a pic of a boob or beaver is not against the law...

or am i reading it wrong


It can be argued taking a tit pic isconduct of a sexual nature. SCOTUS has argued that.