Teenage girl guilty of creating child pornography... of herself.

[JCC]

Teenage Girl Facing Child Porn Charges

A teenage girl in Clearfield County is arrested for child pornography.

A 15-year-old girl from Clearfield County is facing several charges including Possession of Child Pornography, Distributing Child Pornography, and Creating Child Pornography.

Police say the girl took naked pictures of herself and sent them to a 27-year-old man through the popular website “MySpace,” last June.

The Clearfield County District Attorney, Bill Shaw Jr., says even when a teenager takes naked pictures of themselves, it's still considered child pornography and could be a felony.

Shaw says this type of behavior is becoming an epidemic in our region, and that these kids have to be held responsible.
He says when nude and provocative photos are posted to the web, or sent through text messaging, that person could be in some serious danger.
He says they could be stalked, kidnapped, raped, or even killed.

The district attorney and the state police are encouraging parents to monitor their kids use on the internet, and on their cell phones.
The man involved in this case is also facing charges.

——————————————————————————————————

What do you guys think about this? A valid course of action taken by the cops, or totally batshit crazy? You guys probably know me well enough by now to know my view on being arrested for taking advantage of yourself. :mad30:

 

[Revolver]

I don't think it's completely crazy. She did sell the pictures to adults. Maybe the part about in possession of it is a little nuts since she can see it without a photo.

 

[JCC]

She didn't sell them. I just think that she got a little overzealous in wooing her cyberhoney, which is creepy, admittedly, but I don't think that it's malicious and I certainly don't think it's distribution of child pornography.

 

[Harm]

Ahahaha that is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. They are OF HER. My friend Lindsey always sends naked pictures of herself to people through her phone, it's not child porn it's just being a weirdo.

 

[Edmund Blackadder]

I don;t know enough about this case, but to be honest from skimming it, it seems to me she has done this for the older men - and if that is the case, it is possible/probably she has been un/knowingly groomed.

The 27 year old needs to be arrested and sent to prison though.

 

[Silum]

I think she is absolutely crazy... but she has a right to be crazy and can do whatever she damn well pleases. The point here though is... she sent naked photos of herself to a 27 year old man on myspace...surely that 27 years old man is in possession of child pornography. He's the guy they should be going after.

 

[Black Eye Guy]

I think it's a great idea to charge her, you always hear of the older person getting charged, and they may not have been in the wrong (Clearly they are in the wrong, but I mean in cases were the girl says she's 19 and it turns out she's 12!)

 

[Harm]

I think it's a great idea to charge her, you always hear of the older person getting charged, and they may not have been in the wrong (Clearly they are in the wrong, but I mean in cases were the girl says she's 19 and it turns out she's 12!)

So how is it a good idea to charge her?

 

[disturbedvanity]

Whaaaaatt??? That's crazy. Idiot girl for sending them to a stranger on myspace...but child pornography charges for HER? It's a sick sad world we live in...

 

[Tsquared]

So how is it a good idea to charge her?

Probably to make an example, I mean the law system is not always going to be fair.. and that's a fact.

 

[Harm]

So get one innocent girl in trouble to teach a lesson?

....I smell Bull Shyte.

 

[Tsquared]

So get one innocent girl in trouble to teach a lesson?

....I smell Bull Shyte.

Since when is she innocent? I'm 15 and I clearly know the difference between what is right and what's wrong.

 

[Edmund Blackadder]

Since when is she innocent? I'm 15 and I clearly know the difference between what is right and what's wrong.

Actually, what is right and/or wrong here?

Seeing as you you CLEARLY know?

Lets assume that the reason she is being taken to task is because she knows exactly what she is doing.

She has taken pictures of HERSELF without being forced and sent them to someone else.

I do not agree with what she has done, and if she was my daughter I would I would have tanned her hide so much she'd look Mexican (on the assumption she was as white as me) BUT thats bieng an over protective parent.

If this is ALL her, then she can do whatever she likes.
What IS an issue however, is a guy at 27 who thinks its OK to accept pictures like this from a young person...unless she was sending them without his knowledge/consent.

Now, I have family friends who with their 2/3/4 year olds and let them run around naked in their yard in warm weather. They take family photographs to recall this time, there is NOTHING sinister in this, but according to this fruitloop attorney, this could also be seen as a felony.

I swear some people are absolutely stupid.

 

[Harm]

Since when is she innocent? I'm 15 and I clearly know the difference between what is right and what's wrong.

Because she's underage. And she's just taking pictures of her own body. Dumb to send it to a gross 27 year old but she really did nothing illegal.

 

[Tsquared]

Actually, what is right and/or wrong here?

Seeing as you you CLEARLY know?

Hehehe, I like how you say that. 😉

Because she's underage. And she's just taking pictures of her own body. Dumb to send it to a gross 27 year old but she really did nothing illegal.

So that makes her completely innocent? A twelve year old is eligible to be trialed as an adult in a murder case, not the best analogy.. but the age difference has to be significant.

I never said that the girl should be issued a felon, I'm simply saying that she doesn't deserve to be given a Get Out of Jail/Whatever Free because of her age.. and the guy? I mean obviously his place should be behind bars, but even a stupid person would know that.

 

[itsxpaperdoll]

Now, I have family friends who with their 2/3/4 year olds and let them run around naked in their yard in warm weather. They take family photographs to recall this time, there is NOTHING sinister in this, but according to this fruitloop attorney, this could also be seen as a felony.

Obviously dirty little perverts... NOT. I think fruitloop attorney is exactly the right description for this guy. Since when is taking pictures of yourself illegal? Whether you're underaged or not, there's nothing gross or illegal about taking a nude photo of yourself and sending it to someone. It's weird and a bit obscene, maybe, but not illegal (or at least, it shouldn't be) If anyone was in the wrong here, it would be that older guy for having nude pictures of an underaged girl, but even then, I assume it was voluntarily and all.

 

[Lou]

Well, the key here would be not what she's charged with, but the punishment given.
If she's a minor and it's handled in family court, there's nothing saying that what she'd end up with would be more than a slap on the wrist, maybe some community service, court costs, counseling and closed records on the event and no one would ever know later in life.

I'm not entirely sure about the "possessing" child pornography charges, as they ARE pictures of her. But, distributing and creating sounds about right.

No real reason a 15 year old can do it and an 18 year old can't.

A sign to parents that they NEED to watch their kids and a signal to kids that this isn't "harmless" even if they don't get kidnapped sounds like a good idea to me. But, again, it depends less on the charges and more on the punishment.

As for Harm's friend, if SHE were 15 and sent one of those pics to Harm when he turned 18....just because she thinks this is okay doesn't mean he should get slammed with Child Porn charges for having one of the pics.
And, just because she thinks this is fun NOW doesn't mean she will always want naked pics of herself floating around. Perhaps cases like this might whip some sanity into her head to think more about what kind of things COULD happen.

 

[Edmund Blackadder]

Hehehe, I like how you say that. 😉



So that makes her completely innocent? A twelve year old is eligible to be trialed as an adult in a murder case, not the best analogy.. but the age difference has to be significant.

I never said that the girl should be issued a felon, I'm simply saying that she doesn't deserve to be given a Get Out of Jail/Whatever Free because of her age.. and the guy? I mean obviously his place should be behind bars, but even a stupid person would know that.

And yet you don't answer the question, in fact your continuing point actually argues she has done nothing wrong, in this case.

You say a 12 year old can be tried for murder, thus be seen in the eyes of the law as an adult.
So, people in the adult movies/magazing industry, should they be arrested too because they have willingly allowed naked pictures of themselves to be taken and used.

I don't see any relevance to the point of what is happening here in your comment at all because in one instance you're arguing her age should be held against her and in another arguing that her age shouldn't.

 

[palabravampiress]

I'm still wondering how taking nude pictures of oneself could possibly be considered being in possession of child pornography. Creating and distributing? Maybe. But by saying one must be 18+ just to look at his or her own nude body, you're setting one heck of a precedent. Since when is one's own nude body too indecent for one's own eyes?

The other complication here is the fact that this is her body and that these are her images. I can see the act of sending the pictures to her adult cyber crush as potentially worthy of indictment for child porn charges, but not merely creating or possessing the images. Is her body not her own to do with as she pleases? I think it is dangerous to accept a precedent in which minors are denied any agency over the use of images of their own bodies.

Another question to consider is whether or not the images were actually obscene and/or pornographic. We don't want to set up a precedent in which any child nudity is a felony otherwise, as EB indicated above, a lot of long distance relatives are liable for charges just because they have little Jimmy's first bath or Jane's first time on the big girl potty on their hard drives. Non-pornographic child nudity may not necessarily be relegated to pictures of young children and babies, though. What it a well-meaning relative has photographic evidence of teen Jamie or pre-teen John's bruise marks or malnutrition and are afraid of tipping off the police lest they be brought up on child porn charges? I haven't seen the images (nor do I want to see them), but I do think that a clear distinction must be drawn between nudity and porn before we charge a girl for having nude pictures of herself.

 

[Tsquared]

And yet you don't answer the question, in fact your continuing point actually argues she has done nothing wrong, in this case.

You say a 12 year old can be tried for murder, thus be seen in the eyes of the law as an adult.
So, people in the adult movies/magazing industry, should they be arrested too because they have willingly allowed naked pictures of themselves to be taken and used.

I don't see any relevance to the point of what is happening here in your comment at all because in one instance you're arguing her age should be held against her and in another arguing that her age shouldn't.

I don't see my point from any angle stating that she has done nothing wrong, but I'll go ahead and restate it. Just for clarity - clean, fresh hand of cards. Yey. 😀

The girl's age is obviously the main issue here, otherwise we wouldn't be discussing it. Right? She has committed an act against the law, and keep in mind that she also has Possession of Child Pornography on her slate; we don't exactly know if it's hers or another childs, hey maybe it might be a 12 year olds, that'll fit snuggly into my last analogy. Yey, right? She obviously needs punishment, that's where my main posts slide in, she is NOT innocent based solely on her age. But I'm also saying that she shouldn't be trialed without consideration SOLELY on her age. It shouldn't be so subtle where she would just get a few months of probation and a slap on her wrist, and neither firm enough where she'd serve most of her younger years behind bars. That's pretty obvious, and don't you think I would make a lenient judge? If it doesn't get anymore clearer than that, well it's because I'm just so stupid.

The guy though? He's jailbait.