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

[Relic]

JCC, look into supply and demand, and contraband too. The greater the blackmarket goods quantity, the easier it is to sell or in this case share transfer. The more the enforcement seems laxidazical, the more willing perverts are to risk consequence.

Again it comes down to law and an understanding of why they are written.

And again, if this behavior/good is deemed illegal and wrong because of bad circumastances realted to it, as in child porn, I'd wager an influx in supply will speed further rules of society being ignored/broken. ( at least ones pretaining to the initial infraction, like underage prostituion, molestaion, and the like.)

Uncle Rory's statement makes sense to me. Will an influx in crack supply cause more crack addicts, especially when considering a lack of prosecution for a crime itself in supplying the drug? Yes, or at the very least, likely so.

Is this crack reference a relivant comparison to the example? Unless you show me the error of my ways, i'd think yes, again. You must bring forth both the supplier and the demander for prosecution....for that matter especially the supplier. At the very least immunizing a supplier for prosecution will not help enforcement.

Prololiferating/ enabaling unlawfull behavior be it instigated by a minor or not, does lead to more unlawfull behavior. It is not necessarily harder on the minors either, the excuse is made, the leniancy expected.

Minors exploring their sexuality is not the problem in cases like this or on the opposite end, like child porn. It is ignorance of circumsatnce of the victim and/or the 'taking advantage of' nature of the parasitic scum bags that causes the problem and can lead to unsafe environments for children.

I'm not saying try the child as an adult. I am saying prosecute her with some understanding of the situaition gleeaned by way of trial and the justice system.

Letting her off sends the wrong message to a 14 year old who does the same for a 13 year old....pretty soon tweens are posing and perverts are plotting....especially on myspace or facebook.

 

[InsaneMystic]

Do people have no morals or common sense?

Morals are something I no longer have use for. As for common sense - I think making this girl face court is about the greatest violation of common sense I can think of.

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.

Well, obviously you have no use for me then, I can live with that. Under the current definition, yes, I say there IS a form of "child pornography" that is acceptable and should be legalized. I have much, much bigger problems stomaching the thought of a society where a girl making pcitures of herself is branded a "sex offender".

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.

It's currently illegal, yes, but that's a cr*ppy law that should be changed ASAP if it leads to situations such as this.

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.

If "zero tolerance" means criminalizing a girl who made pictures of herself, then I violently oppose a policy of "zero tolerance". The world isn't black and white, not even with (the current definition of) child pornography.

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 guarantee you that my opinion would not change. The situations are totally unrelated.

 

[Relic]

crap Mystic, you beat me to my add edit. Well, off to read your addition to the topic 🙂

 

[Uncle Rory]

The circumstances surrounding this case are completely irrelevant to the greater good. However it seems that the folks here are all cool with a 15 year old girl (either through cohersion or not, we'll never know) distributing pictures of herself in naked or erotic situations via the internet.

In these cases it is better to err on the side of caution. To the people who picked my post apart line by line, you are so full of crapola it isn't even funny. Not to mention that that you have no basis for your opinions as you obviously have never been the victim of any type of sexual crime. Where are all the staunch FEMINISTS who come out swinging on other threads? Show me a feminist in favor of child porn of any kind. I have seen first hand the effects of child abuse (of which child porn is both a cause and catalyst) and it is something that absolutely devestates a life, sometimes irreversibly, always profoundly and always negatively.

Surely there are a lot of people who would argue anything for the sake of arguement. They should stay the hell away from topics like this. ANYONE WHO WOULD ARGUE THAT ANY FORM OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY IS ACCEPTABLE IS A REPREHENSIBLE CRETIN.

I at no time stated that the girl should be locked up for life, but she should be made an example of, period. Child pornography is a cancer in ALL societies. There is no up side. And just what the hell are you all up to that you want to protect? Thank god that NOTHING related to this topic will be decided by any of you. You give the entire Buffyverse a BAD NAME.

Uncle Rory

 

[Lindsey McDonald]

The circumstances surrounding this case are completely irrelevant to the greater good. However it seems that the folks here are all cool with a 15 year old girl (either through cohersion or not, we'll never know) distributing pictures of herself in naked or erotic situations via the internet.

No. Not true. Read people's posts. People are arguing against the charge of possession, not distribution. There is a huge difference between a person possessing pictures of themselves in naked or erotic situations, and distributing said pictures. To make it a crime to have a picture of yourself naked is completely ridiculous, no matter what age you are.

 

[Edmund Blackadder]

The circumstances surrounding this case are completely irrelevant to the greater good. However it seems that the folks here are all cool with a 15 year old girl (either through cohersion or not, we'll never know) distributing pictures of herself in naked or erotic situations via the internet.

There is an absolute difference between thinking something shouldn't be illegal and something being 'cool'.

I think what she has done is stupid and her parents REALLY need to sit down and talk to her, what I don't think is that the police/courts should have any jurisdiction over something like this IF this was her idea, her doing and no one was forced/coerced!

 

[Revolver]

I don't think the girl should be locked away for life, but it definitely sets a dangerous precedent to tell our young girls, "It's okay. Send out as many naked pictures of yourself as you want. Don't worry. Only the guy could possibly get in trouble."

 

[Faith]

I'm only going to say this once. Not everyone will agree on this so please respect the opinions of others and keep away from the petty name calling please.

 

[InsaneMystic]

Not to mention that that you have no basis for your opinions as you obviously have never been the victim of any type of sexual crime.

Sorry to disappoint you and to shatter your prejudices, but I have been a victim of sexual violence, and still my opinion stands that nothing worthy of judicial attention has happened in this case, and it's a shame to a legal system to make the girl face court for such nonsense.

I at no time stated that the girl should be locked up for life, but she should be made an example of, period. Child pornography is a cancer in ALL societies. There is no up side. And just what the hell are you all up to that you want to protect? Thank god that NOTHING related to this topic will be decided by any of you. You give the entire Buffyverse a BAD NAME.

I find the name given by black-and-white moralists calling for "examples being made" of teenage girls who hurt noone by their actions a worse one. When has that ever been what Joss' vision is about?

 

[Relic]

But, my friend, the only example they are making of her is an example of the letter of the law and its workings.

To not be held responsible/liable to the law of the land is to suggest that it is ok for a minor to take those kind of pictures of themselves and distrubute to whomever, as long as when and if it is found out, the parents handle it.

At the root, that is what it represents...to me at least. And that sounds negligent and dangerous as it sets up a loop hole for abusing parents to work with as well as setting up a no consequence system for kids with parents who just don't give a damn.

Parental envolvement in a punishment is not enough in my opinion, not for the severity of the crime and the risk it possibly posses for herself and the damage that kind of crime could possibly do to society.

She should have a punishment with some guidence, not jail time and no criminal record, but just letting the parents handle it is not enough. I'd give her some community service and a fine or something else a more creative.

Maybe make her work a rape shelter or something.

 

[InsaneMystic]

But, my friend, the only example they are making of her is an example of the letter of the law and its workings.

To not be held responsible/liable to the law of the land is to suggest that it is ok for a minor to take those kind of pictures of themselves and distrubute to whomever, as long as when and if it is found out, the parents handle it.

At the root, that is what it represents...to me at least. And that sounds negligent and dangerous as it sets up a loop hole for abusing parents to work with as well as setting up a no consequence system for kids with parents who just don't give a damn.

Parental envolvement in a punishment is not enough in my opinion, not for the severity of the crime and the risk it possibly posses for herself and the damage that kind of crime could possibly do to society.

She should have a punishment with some guidence, not jail time and no criminal record, but just letting the parents handle it is not enough. I'd give her some community service and a fine or something.

From a purely legal viewpoint, it should be ok. I disagree with a law that forces involvement of a judge, jury and DA, wasting their time and tax payer's money on it, when there's no victim and thus, no crime.

I see no need for any kind of punishment there, just for education - and that's not a courtroom's job but the one of parents.

 

[Relic]

I'm not sure I'm understanding what your saying. What do you mean by a purely legal view point and it should be ok?

There is no such thing as a victimless crime, society sees things long term and beyond case by case scenerios. Precedents are formed by shared experience. The next child who tries this may not be so lucky, but by drawing on this experience of little to no consequence and thinking that they could get away with it, they could endanger themselves greatly. I prefer to not wait untill there is a victim, I see the law as a deturrent and a gaurd against those sad circumstances.

A minor sent nude pictures of themselves to an adult for what i assume is for sexual gratification? That is against the law because similiar acts have had prices to pay for society.

You need not kill someone speeding to be charged with a speeding ticket, the law exists to keep acceptable behavior and a safe society.

I'm not seeing the difference here.

 

[InsaneMystic]

I say that it should not be the job of the state and its organs to stop people from hurting themselves. Where's the logic in punishing a kid for "protection"?

And there simply IS NO victim here, no matter how much you want to twist the facts. If drunk driving could only ever hurt the driver and no other person, I'd be all for abolishing DUI laws immediately, too. In a free society, you should have the right to hurt yourself without police and courtrooms interfering, as long as no third party gets affected.

---------- Post added at 12:25 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:09 AM ----------

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

Oh, shielding them is fine, you won't find me arguing there! I just fail to see how pressing criminal charges against a kid would ever constitute "shielding" them.

Again: The parents/guardians of that girl clearly have a job to do there, but there's no need whatsoever to involve the judicial system as nobody's rights got infringed upon.

 

[Lou]

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".

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.

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.

The kicker here with the possession and creating (I'd imagine) is that it wasn't an instance of her "personally exploring her sexuality" but that it was done with the intent to send it out.
If we were talking about personal pictures that her bratty little brother uploaded while being a pain, then this would be a different situation. Instead, it would appear that she created this pictures NOT for herself but to send this this man. Which is where I think the difference lies in the eyes of the law.

 

[Tsquared]

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.

But this isn't even an exploration of sexuality, but I do agree with the fluidness on right and wrong here. It seems like there is an elevation of unneeded depth that is being added to the subject, and from how I've been seeing it... it's simply been a matter of opinion.

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.

I must go with Lou's logic for a reconvene at this time. When we have more details on the background of the charges, and what actually conspired between the two.. then it's safe to assume and state our case without any natural bias. The lack of raw material here simply isn't enough to have the best (see the emphasis) arguable case.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

Or that the guy...

got so excited about seeing the image(s) of a pre-teen girl that he decided the neighbor`s daughter would be worthy of watching, or more. Jack McClellan had to start somewhere.

 

[Lemon]

Children are so stupid. But this is really common. I don't see the point in charging her for anything...

 

[Silum]

Shit, why do i come across these thread where their firing away... when im drunk!

Well, maybe thats best considering what i have to share. I dont really understand how this thread reached 4 pages but it seems to do with the fact the girl should be somehow charged in this which is completely insane. She may not be blameless but she is definitely not guilty.

In my inebriated state I can mention a personal relevant story. My first love happened when i was 16, and my girlfriend was then 19.. this is in the US where it is actually considered illegal (actually less so as the female being older has never been tried). It IS a fine line between a relationship and 'statutory rape' of which I am very much aware (from my first love...not now!) but things are not just 'black and white'. Still...this is very different story... and either way.... the male being 27, accepting images of a 15 year old is undoubtably at fault.

To accuse the 15 year old girl at this time (lets be honest, a very emotional and experimental time) would be ludicrous... thankfully state law in every single US state that I know of agrees with me which is why this case is going to go nowhere (except the 27 year old man of course). A 15 year old girl WILL NOT be sentenced to child pornography charges in a case like this... in fact (despite this "news" article).... i think you would have to be pretty stupid to think so.

....To those rallying to one side or the other, understand that everyone is different and that in actual fact, a very mature 15 year old could quite possibly have a relationship with a 27 year old. Things are not black and white and your not living in your own little fantasy bubble of perfection where HS senior meets HS senior and falls madly in love.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

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.

'Sexting' surprise: Teens face child porn charges

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.

 

[Blair Waldorf-Bass]

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