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

[Lou]

Yeah, I never saw EC say she was innocent. But, that's just me. It seemed to go along the same lines in every post.

It's only the possession that bugs me. Granted, we don't know if she has pictures of anyone else.
But, maybe the general idea is that she can't really be charged with creating or distributing Child Porn unless she has it in her possession.

I think we can assume that it was "mildly" racy at least. I thought the definition of pornographic pictures was "pictures of a sexual nature intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings."

Surely she wasn't sending naked pictures of herself through MySpace for....gee, what would an innocent reason BE for a 15 year old to send naked pictures through MySpace? Maybe, "Take a look at this mole and tell me if you think it needs checked"????

We can't really say it's illegal for Uncle Bob to get Susy to let him take naked pictures and mail them to this 27 year old but it's OKAY for her to. That makes no sense.
Although 15 may not exactly be the age of reasons, and I'm SURE she wasn't plotting on creating a small pornography ring for money....she should know enough that this wasn't the "right" thing to do. She'd get arrested and charged if she decided to become a prostitute too, even though we could all still look at her and say the same things..."It's her body.", "She has some personal issues"," She's not old enough to realize the impact of all of this".

She shouldn't be locked up for 10 years, but she does deserve SOME punishment...even if it's just a fine and community service...and THERAPY!

 

[Edmund Blackadder]

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.

Have we read the same article?

What has she actually done that has broken the law?
Sending nude pictures of herself to some weirdo guy?
I don't know the laws of this state, but that shouldn't be illegal. She has taken pictures and sent them to someone.

When does having a picture of your naked self constitute possession of child pornography?
Also, when did we make the leap that she may have pictures of 12 year olds on her hard disk - that isn't even suggested in the article, there is nothing in it to suggest anything other than her having explicit pictures of herself.

IF she is old enough to face external judicial punishment for something then she is old enough to be seen as an adult and if that is the case, then the former negates her 'crime' because its not illegal for an adult to take pictures of themselves and send them to people, if she isn't an adult then she can't be held responsible for what she does, thus no crime committed by her.

The ONLY 'facts' we have to go on is that she is 15 years old.
She created some pictures of herself.
She sent them to someone.

Why she sent them to the 27 year old, thats something different.
What he did with them, that is something different.
What will/should happen to him is something different.

 

[Lou]

EB....

I don't understand you're thought process here.

It's okay for a child to send nude pictures of themselves to adults. Then is it okay for someone to find a willing 15 year old and take nude pictures of them and send THEM to his 27 year old buddies?

The Federal Guidelines even include
"visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, photograph, film, video, or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct"

Obviously, we know this girl MADE it and is underaged and distributed it...and is in possession of it.
Now, whether having a picture of YOURSELF is all that horrible may be part of a question. On the other hand, she is creating it and distributing it. Why should she be any less charged than the seedy old man hiring minors for movies or pictures and distributing those? If she hadn't distributed them...I doubt anyone would care if she had nude pictures of herself. Just like I can have nude pictures of my children on mine.
The problem comes up when they're distributed for "erotic purposes". So, if I uploaded the kid's bathing to a site or sent them to some guy who was overly interested in seeing naked children....THEN those pictures are no longer "cute family photos" but possession of something illegal that I intend to distribute.

 

[Harm]

I just think that the man should get in trouble for having them, and allowing her to send them. It's not possession of child pornography if it's of yourself. What is she going to get charged for child molestation if she touches herself while say washing in the shower now?!

 

[Revolver]

If you read the end of the article, the man IS in trouble. He's scum. No one is disputing that.

 

[Edmund Blackadder]

Its perfectly fine for the 15 year old to create pictures and distribute them.

The problem in this case is that it is a 27 year old man receiving them.

Now IF, and let us remember that we ONLY have the single bit of information in the first post, she has been manipulated into sending pictures, groomed, coerced, forced or whatever you want to call it, then he (or whoever has done the forcing) is at fault.
IF she has sent the pictures of her own free will because they have a 'relationship' then she has still done nothing wrong, though he is questionable for having a 'relationship' with a 15 year old.
IF she has sent the pictures without his knowledge and he keeps them, then that is a little strange and needs to be looked into - if he deletes them (or informs the authorities or someone else) then he's done the right thing.

In none of these cases has the girl done anything wrong in a legal sense.

She DOES need to be st down and talk to, maybe a parents job about how silly this is, but the idea that criminal procedures will be brought against her because she took pictures of herself and sent them to someone is laughable.

At 16 I had a girlfriend who was 15 (there ws 4 months difference between us) and we'd been together since we were both 14. Rightly or wrongly we started a sexual relationship, one that was conducted in a safe manner.

Had the technology been around then that is around now, there is a good chance, knowing my girlfriend of the time, that she would have taken some sexually provocative/explicit pictures that we would have laughed at.

There isn't anything wrong with that at all.

The problem in this case in my mind is that there is a 27 year old involved BUT we don't actually have any idea what part he played.

The fact this girl is the one in trouble kinda suggests he wasn't doing anything worthy of arrest (unless he was out of jurisdiction) so that suggests she is the one that is in the wrong for sending the pictures.
If that is the case, I fail to see how she could be held in the wrong at all.

 

[BuffyElevated]

I guess I can see both sides of it... But if they arrest this girl, they're going to have to start making a LOT of arrests 'cause have y'all seen these little hoes on MySpace lately?
I just hope the asshole who accepted the pics gets in trouble, too, 'cause HE's the one who's seriously in the wrong. To even think about someone that young is just wrong.

 

[Edmund Blackadder]

Revolver agrees: But the article says he is facing charges too, so it's not just her. It's both of them.

We don't know ANYTHING about the relationship, what he has done.

It might be that she is a MySpace friend and sent him some pictures through MySpace that the site have seen and reported - Facebook have the ability to read ALL messages you send, there is nothing private there, so MySpace probably have the same thing - because she 'fancies' him.

All we have is the article that has her in trouble and if she is in trouble then obviously the route of being coerced/forced/groomed has been explored and its been decided she was willing.

We can only go on what has been said BUT in any case, I don't think she should have any legal proceedings held against her.

If/when he is found to have asked for the pictures and/or kept the pictures then he should be in trouble - but until we know more, we can't say much on that side of things.

 

[Lou]

Its perfectly fine for the 15 year old to create pictures and distribute them./QUOTE]

Not true. If child pornography is any pictures (including cartoons) of a person underage nude meant to get an erotic reaction, then she IS guilty.
She took the pictures, she distributed the pictures and assumably NOT to get the reaction of "gee, that mole does look iffy". I fail to see how she could possibly be innocent of something while doing the same thing "creepy old men" are getting in trouble for everyday. Just because SHE did it, herself?

And, maybe she WAS "groomed" or a victim of a zillion other things that explain this behavior. In which case, that can come out in court and can be taken into account by a jury and/or in her sentence.
But, you can't just say, "It's okay for YOU to do it, Sweetie and we won't even charge you" while charging every other weirdo who does the very same thing.
Especially, if by charging her, you stop even one other teen from doing the same thing and possibly getting themselves into all sorts of trouble, when it doesn't turn out as "happy" as this case in the end.

She has still DONE these things. Now, why she did it or how diabolical her plot was or whether she has issues that led to it, that's for a jury to decide....not part of whether or not to charge her.

 

[Edmund Blackadder]

IF she is to be tried as an adult (which if proceedings are going ahead indicates she is accountable), then the crime must be viewed in the same manner.
She can't be an adult for one part and a child for the other.

If you are saying that she shouldn't be allowed to do this, then you are setting a dangerous precedent by saying the body of an underage person does not belong to the person, that they have no rights to do with it what they wish.
If this is the case, who does 'own' the body.

This girl, in my opinion stupidly, took pictures of herself and sent them to someone, but I see absolutely nothing wrong LEGALLY with that.
The idea that she can get into trouble because she took provocative pictures of herself is ludicrous.

 

[Lou]

She can certainly be charged with these crimes in family court. And even if she was tried in criminal court as an adult, the fact that she IS a minor would certainly come into play.

It doesn't really say anything about who "owns" a body. It says that distributing child pornography is against the law. And a child engaging in child pornography of their own free will (or prostitution) is breaking the law.

Otherwise, you'd have weirdos putting up sites all over the place and having the minors involved telling the police "oh, it's okay, I hit send all by myself".

YOU may personally see nothing wrong with the general act, itself. But, that isn't the point. The end result is still nude pictures of a MINOR in sexual positions floating around the web. Which is against the law. For the police to NOT charge her, opens a GIANT loophole for predators and creates a double standard.
No, she didn't TECHNICALLY hurt anyone but herself. If it's viewed in a bubble. The bigger pictures is two fold. There is the general rash of child pornography that is all over the place and the predators that are feeding off of it and there is also the rash of teenagers not who are over sexualized and over trusting of who and what they do.
This girl may well have simply decided she "wanted" this guy and she was going to go above and beyond to "get him". That wouldn't be unheard of, the same story is on the news and TV shows all the time.

You should keep in mind that charging someone and sentencing them to life in prison are two totally different things. She DOES deserve to be charged. Not for taking pictures of herself, but distributing those pictures which are OF a nude minor.

That's no different from me saying, "I have control of my body. I can drink myself into a stupor". Yes, I may. I am NOT allowed to say, "I have control of my body, I can drink myself into a stupor while driving across the country". Because THEN it effects others.
They say that once you post a picture on the internet it NEVER goes away. Therefore, how can we possibly say that there aren't already 10,000 copies of what she decided to take pictures of all over the place with predators feeding off of that? And what will they do next?

 

[InsaneMystic]

This is so ridiculous. Once more, I'm shaking my head at the US justice system.

It doesn't really say anything about who "owns" a body. It says that distributing child pornography is against the law. And a child engaging in child pornography of their own free will (or prostitution) is breaking the law.

Then the law and/or the definition of child porn has to be changed. Possession and distribution of any material depicting only yourself should be legal in any case, an exercise of your civil rights. Period.

Otherwise, you'd have weirdos putting up sites all over the place and having the minors involved telling the police "oh, it's okay, I hit send all by myself".

It's not about hitting send, it's about clicking the camera button. And if the kid clicked the camera button him/herself, with the "weirdo" not even in the same room, I hold even the "weirdo" not guilty. Does the state really have to try and legislate everything?

If there was manipulation or pressure of any kind going on, however, the situation is a different one entirely. You're really comparing apples with oranges here.

YOU may personally see nothing wrong with the general act, itself. But, that isn't the point. The end result is still nude pictures of a MINOR in sexual positions floating around the web. Which is against the law. For the police to NOT charge her, opens a GIANT loophole for predators and creates a double standard.

What you call a double standard, I'd call necessary differentiation. If an underage girl puts up nude pics of herself on the net, that's not awfully smart, and not to be desired either - but I don't see a reason why anyone should make a legal fuss over it. It should be entirely legal, even if it constitutes child porn under current definition.

No, she didn't TECHNICALLY hurt anyone but herself. If it's viewed in a bubble. The bigger pictures is two fold. There is the general rash of child pornography that is all over the place and the predators that are feeding off of it and there is also the rash of teenagers not who are over sexualized and over trusting of who and what they do.
This girl may well have simply decided she "wanted" this guy and she was going to go above and beyond to "get him". That wouldn't be unheard of, the same story is on the news and TV shows all the time.

You should keep in mind that charging someone and sentencing them to life in prison are two totally different things. She DOES deserve to be charged. Not for taking pictures of herself, but distributing those pictures which are OF a nude minor.

That's no different from me saying, "I have control of my body. I can drink myself into a stupor". Yes, I may. I am NOT allowed to say, "I have control of my body, I can drink myself into a stupor while driving across the country". Because THEN it effects others.

I really can't follow your reasoning there. There's NO WAY she hurts anyone else in any direct causal way, like a drunk driver does.

If you construct a "setting an example" analogy, then it's not the drunk driver who needs to go to jail, it's the distilling industry producing alcoholic beverages, the advertising firms making commercials for them, actors drinking alcohol on screen etc. Last time I checked, all of those were not facing criminal charges.

They say that once you post a picture on the internet it NEVER goes away. Therefore, how can we possibly say that there aren't already 10,000 copies of what she decided to take pictures of all over the place with predators feeding off of that? And what will they do next?

Why should we care? IMO, it's better if said pedos get one off a pic that's been voluntarily provided by a silly girl than off one that's the result of sexual abuse. And until they do "what's next", I won't worry about it, and neither should a D.A. or a judge. Preventive justice leads to police states... and even preventing child abuse isn't worth that, ever. It's the necessary price of freedom.

Yes, someone should have a talk with that girl explaining to her that uploading nude pics of herself to the net is a stupid idea. If the guy uploaded the pics on some mass-accessible site, he should be in for violation of photo rights (but not for any charge involving child porn). Other than this, I see no reason why the state should get involved in this at all.

 

[Lou]

^^While that makes logical sense, there is no way for a "system" to be able to figure out the difference between "child porn that the child is okay with" and "child porn that the child is forced into" once it's out there.
So, to say that it's okay just because she says it's okay isn't really going to work out.

If I had to guess, the charges are more to get her to say something about the guy coercing her and if he didn't to show that it's NOT okay to do. Because we can't have the internet (or anything else) flooded with images of children acting sexually on THEIR say so.
Where would it stop? Could 10 year olds do it? 6 year olds? Only have to be old enough to click a camera and upload pictures? My son could do that at 3!
The child predators would have a FIELD DAY if all children had to do was say it was okay and they were in the clear to stare at pics or live feeds of them all day.

Technically, the pictures she took are illegal to distribute. And she did. It would be illegal for me to distribute the pictures, if I was her parent. Illegal for anyone else to have on their computer. And they're coming from her. She falls under what is said by law. She created them, she has them, she distributed them.
And the giant loophole for predators if they say, "Well, if that's what you WANT to do, that child porn is okay" would be MASSIVE. All they'd need to do is "groom" the children they work with to say they wanted to do it and did it themselves.

I honestly don't see how they could possibly allow SOME child porn to be okay and SOME to be horrible and deserved to be punished. There would be NO WAY to go through sites and determine which was which. It's hard enough to go through and figure out who's 18 and who's not. At least now, if they find one that's NOT 18 they can move forward without having to get everyone to swear it's what they wanted.

She did put the pics out there. Maybe this guy saw them and it stopped there. Or maybe he's not so nice and posted them elsewhere. Or maybe he's not the only one she sent them to.
But, if a newly hatched whacko saw them and decided his 13 year old neighbor might just be what he's been looking for then she's started a ball rolling. Granted, I will give you it's not the same was driving drunk, it was a bad analogy. But, on the flip side, if I was driving drunk, I MIGHT get home safe and sound and no one would have gotten hurt, but someone might.
And someone COULD get hurt because the newly hatched whacko got a little too excited after seeing her pictures.

I don't think real punishment is the best thing for this girl. I would be very upset if she got 20 years for this. (I'd be upset if she served more than a weekend of time anyplace but therapy or community service.) Obviously, she needs therapy of some sort. And there is no saying she's not going to get it. This is just the type of thing where they'd WANT her to give her a deal so that they don't end up looking like JERKS for sending a wayward child away for a crime in which she could well be a victim.
But she DOES need a serious wake up call. That it's dangerous and stupid for her AND, potentially, for others.

I know, it all does sound rather controlling. And I can see why you think that.
On the flip side, after seeing shows and reading stuff about the insanely big Child Sex Trade and how children are kidnapped or just used by their parents in the child porn industry, I honestly find it hard to give an idiot kid a pass to do something stupid and that they shouldn't be doing anyway when it could impede in ANY WAY being able to help children actually in danger.
If she's dying to send out nude pics of herself, she can certainly wait 3 years and then do it all she wants.
Then the police don't have to worry about who honestly consented and who didn't. They can simply work on trying to find the children and getting them out of the situation.

Perhaps, actually, we should reconvene when and IF she's actually found guilty and sentenced. Contrary to what the title says, she hasn't been found guilty, just accused.
Because I'm with you on she doesn't deserve jail time or to be a registered sex offender or any of that. Just therapy and a strong wake up call.
But, as for being accused, I'm not against that.

 

[InsaneMystic]

^^While that makes logical sense, there is no way for a "system" to be able to figure out the difference between "child porn that the child is okay with" and "child porn that the child is forced into" once it's out there.

That does depend on the "out there"-ness, too. If the picture ends up on a public site, then that's certainly not ok unless she uploaded it there herself - but it wouldn't be ok in that case if it's a fully clothed, non-porn pic either; like I said, that falls under violation of photo rights. If it's a private exchange of pics that never reach a 3rd party, and it can be proven that the kid made it herself, with the recipient not even in the same house with her, then yes, it should be legal, be it child porn or not.

Where would it stop? Could 10 year olds do it? 6 year olds? Only have to be old enough to click a camera and upload pictures? My son could do that at 3!

If you could actually charge a 3 year old for possession & distribution of child porn under that law, then MOST DEFINITELY the law should be changed ASAP.

The child predators would have a FIELD DAY if all children had to do was say it was okay and they were in the clear to stare at pics or live feeds of them all day.

There's a marked difference between the kids agreeing to have material made of them, and them providing the material by themselves.
And while I have to agree about the latter possibility opening a gate to "pedo paradise", that should not be a matter for the legal system to deal with, but for parents/guardians/teachers. It should never be illegal to hurt yourself out of stupidity, but it should be the job of educators to make sure a kid notices when he/she is about to do something stupid and hurtful to themselves.

Technically, the pictures she took are illegal to distribute. And she did. It would be illegal for me to distribute the pictures, if I was her parent. Illegal for anyone else to have on their computer. And they're coming from her. She falls under what is said by law. She created them, she has them, she distributed them.

And I still hold it's a HUGE difference between her doing it herself, or anyone else (even a parent) doing it.

There's an excellent analogy here: If anyone were to go and kill this girl, even if said person were her parent, they're in for murder or manslaughter and should by all means face trial. If she attempts suicide, however, that certainly is a tragic (and quite possibly foolish) thing, but she should not face court for it. (Dunno if attempted suicide is a criminal offense in some US states - it definitely is legal over here.)

I honestly don't see how they could possibly allow SOME child porn to be okay and SOME to be horrible and deserved to be punished. There would be NO WAY to go through sites and determine which was which. It's hard enough to go through and figure out who's 18 and who's not. At least now, if they find one that's NOT 18 they can move forward without having to get everyone to swear it's what they wanted.

Finding out which photo was taken by a girl herself and which one wasn't isn't much of a problem. It's usually quite obvious if the kid on the pic is holding a camera/trigger cable, or if some other person did the shooting.

 

[JCC]

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

Arresting people for having the audacity to explore their own sexuality uncoerced doesn't seem right to me, perhaps we ought to explore the possibility that right and wrong are fluid concepts.

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.

I willingly accept that I am very stupid, then. I know that I'm in a different position to everyone else here, but he did nothing to coerce her, it seems, or she wouldn't be facing charges. In the UK, the age of consent is 16. Would this situation change drastically, in a few months, beyond the legal repercussions? Our laws are not automatically the reflection of what's right. A girl willingly took photos of herself naked, and willingly sent them to this man, his culpability here is fairly slim unless he's managed to brainwash her, which seems unlikely.

 

[JenniferAlice]

Ahh, what a mess.

I don't know what to think. I see them both, the 15 year old girl, and the man, as STUPID. She could have been lying about her age? And him? Maybe he's retarded.
Brainwashing, grooming.. I'm not sure, I think UK teens today are very sexualised, and are trying to grown up faster than ever before. All these new outlets, like the internet :dork:, are making it easier for everyone to "get together". It's all very sad. This world is f-cked.

 

[Edmund Blackadder]

Here is an interesting table.
Its the world wide age of consent which I think is very interesting and pertinent to this discussion, consider some US States have the age of consent as low as 14 - would that mean if she was in, say Indiana, it would be fine for her to pass this image to another person then?
Or what if she sent the image to someone her own age?

I do not see what she has done as illegal, and nor should it be.

Country M-F Sex M-M Sex F-F Sex

United Kingdom England, Scotland, Wales Jersey, Isle of Man 16 16 16
United Kingdom Northern Ireland 16 16 16
United Kingdom Guernsey and Gibraltar 16 18 16
USA Alabama 16 16 16
USA Alaska 16 16 16
USA Arizona 18 18 18
USA Arkansas 14/16 14/16 14/16
USA California 18 18 18
USA Colorado 15/17 15/17 15/17
USA Connecticut 16 16 16
USA D.C. 16 16 16
USA Delaware 16/18 16/18 16/18
USA Florida 16/18 16/18 16/18
USA Georgia 16 16 16
USA Hawaii 16 16 16
USA Idaho 18 18 18
USA Illinois 17 17 17
USA Indiana 14/16 14/16 14/16
USA Iowa 14/16 14/16 14/16
USA Kansas 16 16 16
USA Kentucky 16 16 16
USA Louisiana 17 17 17
USA Maine 16 16 16
USA Maryland 16 16 16
USA Massachusetts 16 16 16
USA Michigan 16 16 16
USA Minnesota 16 16 16
USA Mississippi 16 16 16
USA Missouri 17 17 17
USA Montana 16 16 16
USA Nebraska 17 17 17
USA Nevada 16 16 16
USA New Hampshire 16 16 16
USA New Jersey 16 16 16
USA New Mexico 17 17 17
USA New York 17 17 17
USA North Carolina 16 16 16
USA North Dakota 18 18 18
USA Ohio 16 16 16
USA Oklahoma 16 16 16
USA Oregon 18 18 18
USA Pennsylvania 16 16 16
USA Rhode Island 16 16 16
USA South Carolina 16 16 16
USA South Dakota 16 16 16
USA Tennessee 18 18 18
USA Texas 17 17 17
USA Utah 16/18 16/18 16/18
USA Vermont 16 16 16
USA Virginia 18 18 18

USA Washington 16/18 16/18 16/18
USA West Virginia 16 16 16

USA Wisconsin 18 18 18
USA Wyoming 16/18 16/18 16/18
USA Travelling citizens 12/16 12/16 12/16
USA Military personnel 16 Illegal Illegal
Average age* 16 16 16

A table of worldwide ages of consent, including US states

 

[Uncle Rory]

This topic is beyond creepy and the responses that a good number of people have put up here are also so totally wrong. No wonder I get into so many arguements around here. Do people have no morals or common sense?

Or an even better question. does no one on this site have younger nieces or nephews or their own children? Do we want to live in a society where there are is any (let me rewrite that to grab your attention) ANY acceptable child pornography? If you answered YES to that question I have no use for you at all. Regardless of the child's intention (and a 15 year old, under the law is a child) it is child pornography. To hell with a person's right to create or distribute images of THEMSELVES. When you reach the age of majority you can make that desicion, not before. (numerous folks stated "it's not illegal" - HELLO, it is illegal, that's why they arrested these folk - they're not just making the law up as they go along - IT'S ILLEGAL, and rightfully so.

ANY child pornography creates an enviornment where MORE child pornography is wanted and needed. Not to mention the desire within the consumers of this sick product to have illegal intimate relations with a minor. SICK. ZERO TOLERANCE.

The fact that TV, media in general, the internet etc. etc. tries to make 15 year old girls (or 10, or 11 or 12 year olds) the desire or not only of old men but also the desired look for Women of all ages, in combination with the fact that most girls (and this one in particular) have probably lost their virginity by that age in no way should make the creation of Nude, erotic, sexual or pornographic images of anyone under 18 years of age acceptable.

If a child in your family were molested, raped and maybe killed to hide the crime by someone and it was later discovered that this person was a collector of child pornography, would all you "it's not legal because it's her body" believers change your opinions. PATHETIC.

I thought people around here had more common sense.
And to think that people were creeped out over the thought of Giles hooking up with Buffy, not to mention the Connor / Cordelia disgust (both fantasy situations between NOT REAL TV CHARACTERS - yet many are ok with this) UNBELIEVALBE.

Uncle Rory

 

[Blondie Bear]

In general, I think the pornography thing is a personal choice/responsibility thing and nobody should stop a woman (or man, for that matter) from deciding what to do with her/his own body.

HOWEVER.

The girl in question is under 18. It's generally accepted (and therefore legislated) that 18 is the age at which we can expect people to be grown up enough to make their own decisions, and not before. Therefore, this girl does not have the same control over her own body that a 18, 25, or 40 year old would have. We put these laws in place to protect the children, and if they need protecting from themselves, so be it.

Now, I saw someone say that the adult dude needs to be in jail. My question would be--and obviously I don't know all the details here--did he solicit these pictures? If they just popped up in his inbox, will-he, nil-he, then I don't think he did anything wrong, especially if he immediately deleted them. If he kept them, that's an entirely different story.

I guess my main point is, if we set an age at which people gain control over their own lives, money, decisions, etc., than that age stands for anything like this. We can't just make up exceptions. If you don't like the age of consent/majority, then get it changed.

 

[JCC]

To hell with a person's right to create or distribute images of THEMSELVES. When you reach the age of majority you can make that desicion, not before.

Why is that justified?

ANY child pornography creates an enviornment where MORE child pornography is wanted and needed. Not to mention the desire within the consumers of this sick product to have illegal intimate relations with a minor. SICK. ZERO TOLERANCE.

That's not true at all. I won't discount it, but you can't flaunt it like it's infallible, there's no reason to believe that this contained incident between two partners is about to open the gates to a flood of child porn.

If a child in your family were molested, raped and maybe killed to hide the crime by someone and it was later discovered that this person was a collector of child pornography, would all you "it's not legal because it's her body" believers change your opinions. PATHETIC.

No, I wouldn't, because a fifteen year old getting her ta-tas out on Myspace wouldn't be the cause of the crime, so there'd be no reason to punish her.