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

[InsaneMystic]

The wall you're running into IM, is that we really can't SAY this is a victimless crime.
Maybe this girl sent out one set of these photos to one guy who looked at them and never showed them to anyone else.
But, what are the chances she sent out more than one set? Or that the guy didn't forward them to his friends? I can get 5 sets of the same LOL Cats a day. People forward things.

It still should be legal. As long as the pictures are of herself, I have no problem with her distributing them to half the world, unless she's spam mailing them. That would be illegal. The child-pornyness of pictures of one's self, I can hardly care less about. It may not be good taste, but I see nothing illegal about its fabrication, ownership, or distribution (with one important exception to the "distribution" part, see below).

Now, if we tell this girl that HER underaged pictures are not child pornography and that it's a stupid, but lawful thing to do.

The point is, even though they are child porn, they should be legal nonetheless. With the definition that's given above, yes, I hold that some forms of child porn should be legally ok. (Even if Uncle Rory thinks I should be drawn and quartered for saying so.) As you put it: stupid, not to mention tasteless and possibly uneasing, but lawful.

I'm not a moralist, so I don't buy into argument lines based solely on "because it's wrong". If no one's rights get hurt by it, I don't give a damn who considers it wrong, it should be a free citizen's right to do it.

What happens next?

Say the cops raid a pedophile's house and find hundreds of images on his computer. They prosecute him and go after the people who supplied him with these pictures. Let's say this girl's picture is on his computer because it got forwarded and forwarded.
How is it okay for that ONE picture to be fine? And how long would it take for other people who want to supply child porn to the masses to learn the trick of "just say the kid did it themselves"?
So, the cops try to track down all the pictures on the pedophile's computer only to find that all the pictures came from "willing, yet stupid children exploring their sexuality".

I still don't buy into that argument. Really, how big are the chances that a huge pedo pic file on one's PC should include only photos made (not just uploaded!) by the girls themselves? Slim to none. The VAST majority of child porn images - 99% should probably be a low estimate! - are produced under circumstances of unthinkably horrible abuse. Still, if such a thing ever were to happen as to have someone only possess stuff from said 0.x%, I'd vote for letting said pedo run free. As long as they're not hurting anyone, let them exercise their right of living their sexuality, even if it involves looking at child porn. I honestly see no need for the law to get involved there.

There are two catches, though. Firstly, if someone owns lots of child porn, even if they were all of the 0.x% type that I would want legalized, the police had better keep an eye on the guy to catch him the moment he crosses the boundary. Until he does, though, he may be a weirdo and have an uneasing sexual preference, but I still hold him to be a lawful citizen and am outspoken about having his civil rights protected, including being safe from facing court on charges for "crimes" that are ridiculous.

Secondly, if any of those 0.x% pictures get uploaded somewhere by anyone else but the girl herself, it's crossing the line... so unless the girl mailed the pics to all those pedos herself, the uploader can still be had for them if they start circulating - but as I said, not for child porn distribution, as the images remain of the should-be-legal type of porn, but for violation of photo rights/privacy laws.

And about your "How can this ONE picture be fine?" thing, allow me another analogy. Say you earn 500 $ by working an honest job, and then steal 100 $ from the same employer. Will you then be held responsible for stealing 600 $? If the guy has 10 should-be-legal and 5 illegal photos, then he should stand trial for the 5 pics, with the other ten never entering the discussion at all because they shouldn't juristically be relevant (the fact that any smart DA would indubitably mention a vast collection of legal porn owned by a suspect who's accused of possessing illegal porn is another story, though)

The trick here is that she sent them out. Which makes her just as guilty of adding child pornography to the open market as the creepy guy on Law and Order who kidnaps children to stock his website full of nude pictures.

So basically, our disagreement seems to be about this question: Why should child porn be illegal?

People like you and Uncle Rory seem to hold the moralist view that child porn is fundamentally wrong, period, so it should be illegal, period.

I do not share that assessment (and indeed, I'm worried about it from a democratic/civil rights viewpoint). I hold a pragmatic libertarian viewpoint that something should be illegal the moment the one doing it infringes on someone else's rights, and remain legal in any other case. This girl's case proves to me that child porn can not be considered to fit the "generally illegal" category, and should thus be legalized in some cases - cases which, I cannot stress often enough, are a tiny minority. The VAST majority of child porn is anything but victimless, and should thus most definitely remain illegal.

There may not be studies that prove that all normal people who look at child pornography turn into pedophiles. But, there is proof that pedophiles escalate. They may start with looking at pictures, but soon that's not enough. So, having "okay" child pornography out there, may be "victimless" now, but maybe not next week or next year.

That's the escalation argument again, and if you take that serious, you have to blame the tobacco industry for hard drug deaths (a vast percentage of heroinist took weed before, and almost all tokers smoked tobacco) and Hollywood for victims of drunk driving and gun violence. For goodness sake, what ever happened to personal responsibility?

I say it again, preemptive justice leads to police states, and take it from a German: that is not a good thing to have happen.

 

[sibby]

I think the girls bit disturbed.
At 15 i didnt even think of naked bodies and stuff. yes i did talk 2 dudes online but they never was men!
She needs to act her age shes a kid! Start thinking of naked stuff and all when your little bit older.

I would class child porn abit different yes photos but it wouldnt be the child sending them out.
I have meet to pedos. both of which i was lucky...

 

[Joan the Vampire Slayer]

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:

Well, in my opinion, she should be able to legally take pictures of herself, obviously. But it's another thing to send to a 27 y/o guy over myspace.

 

[Perny]

I think it's horrible.. that she does it... what is she thinking????????

 

[Blair Waldorf-Bass]

if ya got a point, make it.

You want me to make my point? I will.

This is completely illegal. Why does she want so much attention? It's not my problem if someone wants to take pictures of themselves, but to go and send them to a perverted 27 year-old-man? That is just one of the most screwed up things I have ever heard of. She should be well aware of the consequences of this. When I was in high school, they had the police come to our school when we were 14 and tell us that yes, if you took pictures of yourself naked and they got onto the internet, you would indeed be charged with child pornography. I don't know how it works in her district, but that is just sick. Unless people are supportive of this girl [w^0#!]ing herself out, I can't see why you would agree to this.

 

[Perny]

^I agree... Plus she is old enough to know that it is illegal... and just morally irresponsible. I mean, where are her parents in all of this? Surely they must know what she is doing. She must be payed for this sick shi*, and the parents have to wonder where she gets the money1

 

[Blair Waldorf-Bass]

^I agree... Plus she is old enough to know that it is illegal... and just morally irresponsible. I mean, where are her parents in all of this? Surely they must know what she is doing. She must be payed for this sick shi*, and the parents have to wonder where she gets the money1

Exactly! I don't understand why Silum thinks that it's okay.

 

[Perny]

^ I don't get Silum either. It can't be Ok. It never will be! She haz to know she is doing something wrong! If the parents won't tell her, or hasn't told her, then I would dare to say they are bad parents

 

[Blair Waldorf-Bass]

^ I don't get Silum either. It can't be Ok. It never will be! She haz to know she is doing something wrong! If the parents won't tell her, or hasn't told her, then I would dare to say they are bad parents

Thanks for backing this on me, Perny. 😉 You're the best! And it will never be okay, that is ust terrible.

 

[Silum]

You want me to make my point? I will.

No not really, just useless posts annoy me, call me crazy.



And what point did I say its OK? Its a crazy twisted thing for a 15 year old to send things to a 27 year old man, but one thing it isn't is illegal. The man is in the wrong here for accepting these images and 'presumably' storing them on his computer. The girl has the right to do whatever she pleases with photos of herself.

 

[Blair Waldorf-Bass]

No not really, just useless posts annoy me, call me crazy.

I stated my point and it's useless?

 

[Silum]

I stated my point and it's useless?

No, this one...

That is so screwed up. She better get into jail.

You elaborated, thats fine. Im not the BB police, just posts like that where you make a pretty big accusation are a little out of place.

 

[Blair Waldorf-Bass]

You elaborated, thats fine. Im not the BB police, just posts like that where you make a pretty big accusation are a little out of place.

Well, it's the law. And she broke it, in a pretty disgusting way, too. Call me crazy, but I just think that that's wrong.

 

[Silum]

....actually, thats not the law. Thats the point. Thats why this thread is exists, its unsual. Am I the only one that see's the strangeness in a girl being guilty of her OWN child porn lol. A 16 year old takes photos of themselves, sticks it on their computer and suddenly their in possession of child porn...lol.

Listen to this from the article

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.

He is describing the exact same situation i just described above... thats ludicrous!

I get it that its the sending to a 27 year old male your probably make your point on, but again, thats NOT illegal, despite what you may think. Shes been arrested, thats not the same as being found guilty... and if she were found guilty of this, it would make major headlines im sure

 

[Blair Waldorf-Bass]

....actually, thats not the law. Thats the point. Thats why this thread is exists, its unsual. Am I the only one that see's the strangeness in a girl being guilty of her OWN child porn lol. A 16 year old takes photos of themselves, sticks it on their computer and suddenly their in possession of child porn...lol.
I get it that its the sending to a 27 year old male your probably make your point on, but again, thats NOT illegal, despite what you make think. Shes been arrested, thats not the same as being found guilty... and if she were found guilty of this, it would make major headlines im sure

I'm pretty sure that it is, unless the police go to high schools and tell us that taking pictures of yourself can get you charged is just bogus, I'm sure it's the law.

 

[Silum]

I'm pretty sure that it is, unless the police go to high schools and tell us that taking pictures of yourself can get you charged is just bogus, I'm sure it's the law.

so why have a thread about it? This should be the norm if this is law. Re-read the thread title for gods sake, notice the "...of herself"...this isn't law...its ludicrous...

I better make sure i dont have any childhood kiddy photos of myself... wouldn't want to go to jail for looking at myself. <---im actually curious...do you even bat an eyelid at these comments?? seriously??

Anyway, im out, this is tiresome.

 

[JCC]

I see where you are coming from, but I think children need shielded from hurting themselves untill they are 'adults'

If we weigh the two situations:

- Takes pictures of boobs, man sees, he gives himself some hand-happies at her request, sorted.
- Takes pictures of boobs, man sees, LEGAL DISASTER WHERE SHE IS CHARGED AS A SEX OFFENDER AND CHILD ABUSER, no hand-happies and everyone's upset, sorted.

I think that the interventionist stance does her far more harm than leaving her be.

The wall you're running into IM, is that we really can't SAY this is a victimless crime.
Maybe this girl sent out one set of these photos to one guy who looked at them and never showed them to anyone else.
But, what are the chances she sent out more than one set? Or that the guy didn't forward them to his friends? I can get 5 sets of the same LOL Cats a day. People forward things.

Now, if we tell this girl that HER underaged pictures are not child pornography and that it's a stupid, but lawful thing to do. What happens next?

Say the cops raid a pedophile's house and find hundreds of images on his computer. They prosecute him and go after the people who supplied him with these pictures. Let's say this girl's picture is on his computer because it got forwarded and forwarded.
How is it okay for that ONE picture to be fine? And how long would it take for other people who want to supply child porn to the masses to learn the trick of "just say the kid did it themselves"?
So, the cops try to track down all the pictures on the pedophile's computer only to find that all the pictures came from "willing, yet stupid children exploring their sexuality".

That's not a fault of hers, that would be the recipient betraying her trust. If her intention was for it to be spread all across every corner of the internet, she's an attention whore, but I would find it hard to muster the moral outrage that everyone else seems to be harbouring since it doesn't really bother me.

If she wants to take pictures of herself. That's peachy. No one would have ever known and she wouldn't have been in trouble.
The trick here is that she sent them out. Which makes her just as guilty of adding child pornography to the open market as the creepy guy on Law and Order who kidnaps children to stock his website full of nude pictures.

How on earth are these two situations linked? If a person kidnaps an adult female and forces them to partake in pornography, that's not justifiable either, but if an adult female takes pictures of herself and sends them, I don't care.

There may not be studies that prove that all normal people who look at child pornography turn into pedophiles. But, there is proof that pedophiles escalate. They may start with looking at pictures, but soon that's not enough. So, having "okay" child pornography out there, may be "victimless" now, but maybe not next week or next year.

And pornography turns people into rapists and action movies make us all into barbaric monsters, we've heard it all before and didn't pay any attention then, so I won't now.

I think this is why she is being charged..

In an unusual legal case arising from the increasingly popular practice known as "sexting," six Pennsylvania high school students are facing child pornography charges after three teenage girls allegedly took nude or semi-nude photos of themselves and shared them with male classmates via their cell phones.

Seeing how both cases were in Pennsylvania and this happened a month before the story posted in this thread, it makes alittle more sense why they are charging her.

I don't see the problem with that practice either. I'm too progressive for my own good, it seems.

I'm pretty sure that it is, unless the police go to high schools and tell us that taking pictures of yourself can get you charged is just bogus, I'm sure it's the law.

Do you agree with that law? Do you think that it should be a charge of creating child pornography and possessing it as soon as you've taken a picture of yourself? That's even more absurd than the distribution charge.

 

[Revolver]

She should be charged with distribution. Regardless of whether the pictures are of her or not, she's given them to someone who is not her. Since it is illegal to possess child pornography, at the very least this makes her an accessory to a crime. It makes absolutely no sense to me to tell children they can give naked photos to whomever they want to and have no consequences. Yes, it's her body. That makes the possession charge a little crazy, but not the distribution charge. I'm an adult and I have a body. It's still not legal for me to run down the street naked. And child pornography distribution is not a victimless crime. The girl is the victim. She may think she doesn't care if some creepy dude has a picture of her, but is she going to think that in a few years? I did a lot of things at age 15 that strike me as stupid now. And say she's pretty sure she won't regret it. It still puts her in very real danger now to be sending naked photographs to any creep who would want one of a 15 year old. Creepy dudes like that aren't generally known for being harmless. No, it doesn't make sense to protect her by giving her a long stint in jail but there are smaller measures that can and should be taken in situations such as these. Letting her get off with no punishment at all, however, is a terrible idea.

 

[randiann]

It makes absolutely no sense to me to tell children they can give naked photos to whomever they want to and have no consequences. Yes, it's her body. That makes the possession charge a little crazy, but not the distribution charge. ...Letting her get off with no punishment at all, however, is a terrible idea.

I agree %100. You can't tell a child that she can do whatever the heck she wants just because she's her own person. If you do that, then you have to make it acceptable for younger children too, and I don't want to live in that world. The girl is under 18, it's illegal, and she shouldn't be sending pictures of herself out to other people. Should she be a felon? Not in my opinion. Should she face no consequences for her actions whatsoever? NO. She broke the law, which is in place to protect her, and she should definately be required to go through some form of therapy at the least.

One more question: Where are her parents? SERIOUSLY!!! This wouldn't happen like it is if parents were more active in their children's lives in my opinion.

 

[Uncle Rory]

And pornography turns people into rapists and action movies make us all into barbaric monsters, we've heard it all before and didn't pay any attention then, so I won't now.

So after thousands of rapists are found to be consumers of Pornography you (NOT WE as you stated) came to the conclusion that it was all bunk and ignored it. How very SELECTIVE reasoning of you. Unfortunately YOU ARE DEAD WRONG.

Ok, not everyone that consumes Porno is a rapist, that's not the point. The point is, does every rapist consume pornography? And, more importantly, does every person who consumes child pornography want to have sex with a child? (answer obvious)

This thread shows some serious character flaws within the community which thankfully will never manifest themselves in the real world.

Apparently the folks here have no clue whatsoever the function of Government, the justice system nor why laws are enacted or enforced. YOUR OPINION IS IRRELEVANT. The laws and government are there to protect you DESPITE your ignorance or objection. And thank god for that cause chaos or anarchy seem to be the order of the day around here.

Creating, distributing, possessing child pornography is illegal, and rightly so. It should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and sentencing should be relative to the details of each case - as it no doubt will be here. The 27 year old should be chemically castrated (I have no use for pedophiles whatsoever) and the girl should be made an example of. The 27 year old (who charitably will not loose his gnads) will have to register as a sex offender and the girl will be an example for other who think it OK to do what she did. IT ISN'T.

Uncle Rory
(I realize some people Do think it wrong but an overwhelming number are ok with this and it's sickening)