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

[JCC]

YOUR OPINION IS IRRELEVANT. The laws and government are there to protect you DESPITE your ignorance or objection.

That's a rather scary thought. Allowing people to show off their boobs appeals to me more than an unquestionable nanny state that turns her into a sex offender. Meanwhile, in Uncle Rory-ville:

"OH MY GOD, LOOK AT THAT MAN DRIVING WITHOUT HIS SEATBELT! QUICK, SHOOT HIM IN THE FACE BEFORE HE HURTS HIMSELF!!"

"Phew, thank god for the government diffusing that potentially harmful situation and keeping us all safe."

 

[InsaneMystic]

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)

Laws should serve the people, not people serve the law. Dunno if you are Christian or not, but there's even a certain rather famous 1st century rabbi agreeing with me on that. Read the Book.

And if following the law is always a good thing and a good citizen should never question it - why does Hollywood make a habit of depicting criminals like Oskar Schindler and Graf Stauffenberg as heroes, while upright, lawful citizens like Himmler and Goering are made to look like bad guys? Why did the US make a point past 1945 to "teach Germans democracy", when we, as a people, clearly had all the right stuff a good citizen of your description needs before the allies invaded our country? There was hardly a more honest and lawful man than your average SS officer, and boy, were the Nazis efficient at providing order and stability. (Sorry if I get flustered and sarcastic here, but given my country's history I find your stance to be politically dangerous!)

You're free to your opinion, of course, but please be aware that I personally find it both scary and disgusting, and I wholeheartedly oppose it. Luckily there's people ready to defend both the girl and the man from the "justice" (more like Inquisition) of the likes of you. I personally shudder to think of a society where you'd get to make the rules, and I'm very happy not to live there.

 

[Revolver]

Maybe it's time a Mod closed this thread.

 

[Silum]

Maybe it's time a Mod closed this thread.

...ya think? 🙂

YOU ARE DEAD WRONG.

YOUR OPINION IS IRRELEVANT.

DESPITE your ignorance

but an overwhelming number are ok with this and it's sickening)

Uncle Rory agrees: Thank god. A voice of reason. Finally.

...either that or ban people who cant even remain moderatly respectful.

 

[Revolver]

Wait, why does one of those lower quotes say my name? I never said that.

 

[Faith]

I do love taking the time to read threads and make posts for people to completely ignore them.

It is one thing discuss and debate opinions with other members but its another when it goes down to the level of verbal attacks on each other. All your opinons matter because they are your own. However it seems to be the case lately that a lot of threads are going down this road, if you have a problem with someone then take it elsewhere, the boards are not your personal boxing ring.

Anymore and I will close this thread without a second thought.

 

[Lou]

It's possible to debate without name calling. Just stay on the topic of the issue at hand and not at each other.
Otherwise, the thread is going to get closed.

______

Or, Faith will beat me to it. 😀

 

[Silum]

It's possible to debate without name calling. Just stay on the topic of the issue at hand and not at each other.
Otherwise, the thread is going to get closed.

______

Or, Faith will beat me to it. 😀

Hitler'esk comments like "the 27 year old should be chemically castrated" are an open invitation to comments, and they will be taken personal whether intended or not.

 

[InsaneMystic]

Hitler'esk comments like "the 27 year old should be chemically castrated" are an open invitation to comments, and they will be taken personal whether intended or not.

I could hardly agree more.

When a certain line is crossed - and to me, it was clearly crossed by the post I reacted to, both in style and content of writing - there are just two options: answer to it, which, me being human, will be colored by fear and anger (leading to bitter sarcasm in my style of writing), or put the offender on ignore. In this case, I chose that the latter would not be the mark of civil courage, as this was an opinion I could not stand to leave unopposed, so I chose to post away.

I think my answers to less inflammatory posts here (which are the vast majority) showed that I am both capable and willing to discuss civilly, even if I disagree strongly with the opinion of other debaters.

All this being said, I still know the form of my post was pushing the limits of civilized debate. I apologize for that, and should mod-ly sanction be given, I'll accept it without quarrel. I'll fully stand by every bit of the content of anything I've said here, though.

 

[Faith]

I was not pointing fingers at anyone, so in the spirit of keeping this thread on track, if anyone feels they need to defend their posts then please contact me thus stopping a whole load of 'my posts were justified'.

Instead of answering posts you find offensive then report them to the staff/ignore/or post constructively, whatever you find best.

 

[yellowcrayon]

Eeesh.

*douses thread with ice water*

Okies. That said...

Frankly, the girl was stupid, imo. Not evil, just... stupid. 😛

Possession with child porn is something that should probably be re-defined because taking pictures of yourself and keeping them for yourself is not inherently wrong. I think it's fine. You wanna do that, go ahead.

However, possession of child porn that isn't you is wrong. No argument there. However, even if the former photos are sexually explicit, if they don't leave the possession of the person, I don't think they should be considered porn.

For instance, I'm in a relationship. Let's say my husband and I decide to take pictures of each other. I would *not* call that porn, so long as they stayed just between him and myself. If I start posting them on the web, I think things change. When it remains within the privacy of our relationship, I think it's just that... private enjoyment and expression of our love.

So, I do think her "possession of child pornography" charge is also stupid. The guy however, deserves that charge.

Creation and distribution make more sense. It is wrong for her to create and distribute porn. She's not of age, she doesn't have a choice yet. Whether people agree with that or not, it's the law. What she did was wrong. It's wrong for people to force minors to do it, it's wrong for minors to do it willfully. As Rory, Revolver, Relic, Blondie and Lou have all pointed out... it's not just to protect her. It's to protect children all over. Playing around with sexually explicit images is risky business, minor or not. She needs to learn not to do this. No, she shouldn't go to jail, but she does need to learn a lesson. I'm with Lou on all that. 🙂

 

[Relic]

I thought about this topic a lot yesterday, and when given a chance to post this morning, I didn't hit it head on...wanted to think on it a bit.

First and foremost to insanemystic, I really admire your libertarian view and value your love of person freedom, kudos times two for illustrating that and how the law can sometimes be bad with the historical examples.

Where you and I have a falling out of opinion, ultimately, is how we see this pertaining to children.

You see this case as an instance of 'unlawful' behavior causing no harm or victim, so what could the harm be while I see it as a violation of a rule or law that guards against hurting oneself when one is a minor.

These are kids and teens in this scenario, some undoubtedly lacking the experience of their seniors who can take advantage of them.

In this case you said it caused no harm, but for the law to serve the people and be fair and not serve an individual, all cases must be trialed/charged equally....thats why law governs the masses while judgement and mercy cater to the individual.

I believe your values are misplaced. Should she be charged with the crime...yes and I will detail why in a minute. When concerning how severe her penalty should be, I'd learn toward lenience but still pursue charges. There needs to be an after effect.

Why? Because although her action did not hurt her, it could have and has had for others. that is why child pornography is illegal, consented or not. Youths can be easily duped...so can adults, but they do not enjoy the same leniency as children do.

She was lucky; laws are not about luck. I don't appreciate you saying I bent definition of law, or however you phrased it that suggested i was tweaking definition for my own agenda.


That simply is not true. Both you and JCC look at this as a case by case scenario, not a law governing scenario. It would make you excellent judges, but in my opinion, less than desirable legislators.

That example JCC posed about the hand happies and no harm being does not look at the law, merely this solitary infraction. It does nothing to curb illegal reckless behavior either.

This case for instance in Wisconsin...there are a handful of minor males who were assaulted by an 18 year old male in Mukwanago or Waukesha Wisconsin. They were playing the wooing internet game's equivalent of the childhood version of Doctor and sent nude/explecive material to a guy who was posing as a girl on a social network site. The 18 year old man then used the images to blackmail the kids into sex acts or he'd show everyone what they sent him. The breaking point was when the monster tried to force one of his victims into making their younger brother pose.

Still think it her case not being prosecuted is harmless?

See, if the law put the fear of consequence into these kids, they may not have sent those pictures. The girl in this story broke a law and got of lucky. I don't believe her lucky streak should continue and she be allowed to get off scott-legally-free.

At the same time trying her as an adult for a crime that would not be a crime if she was an adult, is stupid. That does not mean she should not face some type of charge however.

Her actions are not harmless, just her own limited forseeable outcome the foreseeable outcome. She in turn could have been black mailed or ridiculed.

Just like a youth can not drink or smoke, there are some activities they should not engage in until they are of legal age.

I can find that story and case details if you want about the Wisconsin assaults. I read it in a paper during down time at one of the hospitals I service. I'd google and link to it, but i can't be arsed to without a request...I'm very lazy today! it happened this year in January and the 18 year old is facing like 400 years for all of the assaults, should you want to research this yourself. The kids were not charged, if they were worried they might be this may not have happened. Thats why I think these laws are coming into effect. Digital age of camera phones and wanker pictures and what not.

Oh and a side not, laws are meant to be simple to avoid loop holes in the like. You say kids can produce pornography if it is voluntary and I bet the numbers of it's availability skyrocket. I'd also wager those voluntary cases are few and far between, that the child is being threatened or paid off, or whatever and its not a simple case of...behold, my nakedness!

In consideration to the law, 'if it harms none then let it be' is not the same as 'if it does not harm me then let it be and yeah for me.'
---------- Post added at 02:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:41 PM ----------

 

[JCC]

For instance, I'm in a relationship. Let's say my husband and I decide to take pictures of each other. I would *not* call that porn, so long as they stayed just between him and myself. If I start posting them on the web, I think things change. When it remains within the privacy of our relationship, I think it's just that... private enjoyment and expression of our love.

So, I do think her "possession of child pornography" charge is also stupid. The guy however, deserves that charge.

When it's between you and your partner, it's your business, when it's between this girl and her partner, since the photographs were sent to him rather than placed openly on the internet, it's everyone's business, but with no real reason for the distinction. Why would you say that these two situations are drastically different?

This case for instance in Wisconsin...there are a handfull of minor males who were assulted by an 18 year old male in Mukwanago or Waukesha Wisconsin. They were playing the wooing interent game's equivalent of the childhood version of Doctor and sent nude/explissive material to a guy who was posing on a girl, I think it was on facebook. The 18 year old man then used the images to blackmail the kids into sex acts or he'd show everyone what the sent him. the breaking point was when the monster tried to force one of his victims into making their younger brother pose.

Still think it is harmless?

I hand you a knife with the intention that you use this knife to cut some bread.
You turn around and stab me in the guts with that same knife.
Did you betray my trust, or did I do something wrong?

 

[Relic]

^^^^It would not have mattered anyway (and this is where your anology is flawed) if you are a child and should not be handeling a knife to begin with. That is my point and why the law is what it is. Children are not adults. Adult pornagraphy is not illegal, correct?

I'd answer the question in the adult world as both are wrong, your anology is a bit too simple as well as flawed. I for one would not hand a stranger a knife if it is just him and I in a closed room. Let him get his own damn Knife 😉

 

[yellowcrayon]

When it's between you and your partner, it's your business, when it's between this girl and her partner, since the photographs were sent to him rather than placed openly on the internet, it's everyone's business, but with no real reason for the distinction. Why would you say that these two situations are drastically different?

The difference is that *she* is under age, and *I* am a legal adult. *She* needs to be protected, she's still a child. Yes, I can get myself into bad situations, etc., but the difference is that I am an adult. As Relic pointed out, children do not have as much experience as adults. It is easier for things like this to be used to harm them.

When a child does something wrong, we don't brush it over and say it's okay because they're a child. Neither do we say it's okay for them to do something just because adults can. For instance, if the girl and the man had sex, it's statutory rape. They need to learn that what they did was wrong. Yes, it may be okay later on, but they need to learn to wait. It's wrong for someone who isn't old enough to have a driver's license to go driving a car. Sure, it'll be okay in a few years, and they may not have caused any harm in a specific instance, but the point is that it is wrong at that point in time.

 

[fly on the wall]

I think it's kind of crazy. I mean, if a teen masturbates, is that child rape? ???
Still, I do think they're making an example out of this girl. A way to say, "Okay, kiddies, don't send nude photos of yourself to older men." Which you probably shouldn't HAVE to tell teenagers...but oh well...
At least her record'll get erased when she's 18. *shrugs*

I think this story is crazier: an underage girl takes naked pics of herself, sends them to an underage boy, and they're BOTH in trouble for having child porn. That happened recently.

 

[Relic]

What if your a sixteen year old and takes naked pictures of yourself doing whatever, waits two year and then tries to cash in on a pervert gold mine? Thats trickier yet.

More reasons for me to just say, the hell with it and keep it outlawed and the justice system working at a case by case, detail specific sytem with certain activities warranting their attention.

Yeah, one person might do that pervert gold mine thing and not have a care, but another could have sicko parents that brainwash them into doing the same, escape said brainwashing after the distribution of consented release, and have a world of embarssement and or trouble on their hands. the law is to protect all equally, justice is to interpret how the law is ruled/ decided.

If the perverts of the world have not found a work around for it yet, it's safe to say it's bullet proof and irionclad for a reason.

 

[Silum]

I think this story is crazier: an underage girl takes naked pics of herself, sends them to an underage boy, and they're BOTH in trouble for having child porn. That happened recently.

A lot of people in this thread would agree with that decision.

Total insanity.

 

[Relic]

I don't think it's insanity, it just a definition of something as it applies to law, so I guess I'm one of the insane ones your talking about.

I have no problem with kids doing as kids do. The problem is with the internet there is a great deal of ambiguity to it. The children should be charged with having child porn just as two teens doing it when a cop walks up to their car are charged with many a violation (me and my wife know firsthand 🙂 )

the thing on their computers is what it is, and it is child porn of other people; it's that simple as far as charging goes.

A lot of this crap will be dismissed by a judge (two kids playing doctor), due to circumastances involved with the crime. It's not up to the law to judge, just give rules. Rules aren't an iron fist decision of penance, just a definition, but due to varience they must be kept both simple and unbending.

The courtroom is where the bending should take place.

I see the worry over an unbending courtroom, but have no problem with this law.

 

[Silum]

Im not talking about mass distribution. Im talking about a kid sharing a photo with a kid. This may come as a shock to you but kids have sex...all kinds of sex...wierd funky sex sometimes involving video cameras nevermind still cameras....