on CNN 15 year old girl take nude pics of herself, charge with child porn

[zoobernut]

If they try her as an adult, there will be lulz had. Because if we try this girl as an adult for possession of child pornography, wherein the pictures were of herself, is this not trying an adult for possession of adult pornography? If the law says she is an adult, they cannot try her for possession of child pornography since the law would have classified her as an adult.

Waiting to see on this one, should be interesting.

This would be almost as bad as dividing by 0 and would probably bring on the end of the world.

[Kaliden]

I'm all for prosecuting child abusers and what not, but this is silly.

[Kuya]

I have always believed that there is a downright vicious lack of respect for children, and pretty much everyone below the age of 18 (the elderly too). What i don't understand is, how can we constantly talk about protecting our children and how they're our future while at the same time attack them at every chance we get.

[Melchiah]

Holy fuck, I'm agreeing with Kuya. There is a zero in a denominator somewhere.

[Kaliden]

Because in 'Merica we say one thing and do another. When we say "protect children" we mean protect them from the outside world with nice sturdy bars.

[0ni0n]

Holy fuck, I'm agreeing with Kuya. There is a zero in a denominator somewhere.

hey guis, we need to think of the children.

[Darus Grey]

This has happened before in the past, and chances are she'll get a fairly harsh sentence.

[jmc]

The DA filing charges against this kid should really have his/her knowledge of law under review.

THis is retarded, and a waste of time/money.

[Darus Grey]

Why? according to the LAW, she broke it. If you want to argue from the standpoint of the LAW, she is a criminal who produced and *distributed* child pornography.

The LAW is very clear.

There is no real legal argument here, the entire argument is an issue of compassion and mercy, not the law.

[Charla]

You forgot to capitalize CRIMINAL. I mean, if we all just sit here and let sick, twisted 15-year-old CRIMINALS engage ins depraved, immoral acts of nudity, taking advantage of their own impressionable young minds with sick, disturbing and ILLEGAL images, we're just as bad as child molesters ourselves.

(man, sometimes I even impress myself with this stuff)

edit: Oh, and don't forget to make her move out of the city to protect her from herself.

[gandorf]

Oh wow, This sounds like a waste of time and money charging this girl. Being classified as a sex offender can ruin her whole life. A 15yr old girl exploring sexual stuff is natural. She probably should have saved the pictures for her boyfriend and not have sent them to the whole school but who the fuck decides that this cry for help should ruin her life.

[Purrrfect]

How do you charge the recipients? Someone sends you porn on your phone out of the blue and you get charged for breaking the law? Ummmm...

[Melchiah]

Why? according to the LAW, she broke it. If you want to argue from the standpoint of the LAW, she is a criminal who produced and *distributed* child pornography.

The LAW is very clear.

There is no real legal argument here, the entire argument is an issue of compassion and mercy, not the law.

No sir, it's a matter of definition. We try people in this country as adults who are not allowed the rights and privileges of adults because they aren't adults... every day. You don't see the inconsistency?

It's her body, she took the photos. Child pornography laws are meant to protect children from sick people, not voluntary shit like this. She needs to be educated, not sentenced.

[Khamsin]

If they try her as an adult, there will be lulz had. Because if we try this girl as an adult for possession of child pornography, wherein the pictures were of herself, is this not trying an adult for possession of adult pornography? If the law says she is an adult, they cannot try her for possession of child pornography since the law would have classified her as an adult.

Waiting to see on this one, should be interesting.

But if they don't try her as an adult, she will be a child, and therefore be guilty of child pornography. If she's acquitted, it will set a precedent for other child pornographers to be set free, too. So she must be convicted.

I wonder how cases where an adult gives a kid a camera and asks them to take pictures of themselves work.

[Melchiah]

My argument hinges on them trying her as an adult, if they try her as a youthful offender it's moot in the end because the record is wiped at 18. But to impose the full adult consequences of the sex offender laws in this case is just unreasonable.

[Elesirdur]

Why? according to the LAW, she broke it. If you want to argue from the standpoint of the LAW, she is a criminal who produced and *distributed* child pornography.

The LAW is very clear.

There is no real legal argument here, the entire argument is an issue of compassion and mercy, not the law.

Yeah but under the same logic she's being charged as, posessing or distributing pictures of naked infants or toddlers should count as child porn. The entire point of anti-child porn laws is to protect children from being put in situations where they are sexual objects and may be subjected to physical or psychological sexual abuse. The laws against possession of child porn are reasoned on two points, 1) that it is immoral to view children in a sexual manner, which is purley a social convention, and; 2) that posession implies a market demand for the production of such media, which contravenes the intent of laws to protect children from being the subject of porn.

Therefore, since this girl willfully took pictures of herself in a sexual or suggestive manner, and distributed them with her consent I hardly think that she, or those in posession of those pictures, are going against the intention of the laws against child pornography. Now the fact that others could get their hands on it who are not connected with the original girl, then they could be charged on posession on the moral basis of the law.

The entire situation is pretty damn stupid and it's cases like these that provide examples of why our modern systems of common and civil law allow for the judiciary to make judgements based on the particulars of specific cases.

[Darus Grey]

No sir, it's a matter of definition. We try people in this country as adults who are not allowed the rights and privileges of adults because they aren't adults... every day. You don't see the inconsistency?

It's her body, she took the photos. Child pornography laws are meant to protect children from sick people, not voluntary shit like this. She needs to be educated, not sentenced.

I don't care about the sentence or consistency or anything. I made a simple statement, she broke the law, you're right "it's a matter of definition"...and by that definition, she broke the law. There is no legal argument against that fact.

Whether she deserves a harsh sentence is not related to the law...at all, it's an issue of compassion and mercy as I already stated.

My statement is only directed at people who make irrational claims like "the DA should have his knowledge of the law reviewed"...cause that's just stupid, he IS following the law.

Whether you believe that law is just has nothing to do with it, and is an entirely different beast.

[Demosthenes11]

But if they don't try her as an adult, she will be a child, and therefore be guilty of child pornography. If she's acquitted, it will set a precedent for other child pornographers to be set free, too. So she must be convicted.

I wonder how cases where an adult gives a kid a camera and asks them to take pictures of themselves work.

coercion or something like that I guess, possibly conspiracy?

[Woozie]

My statement is only directed at people who make irrational claims like "the DA should have his knowledge of the law reviewed"...cause that's just stupid, he IS following the law.

To me it would seem that he knows the textual statement of the law but not the purpose of it, so the claim does not seem at all irrational to me. The laws aren't written to be 100% strict and he should know that. If an ambulance has to park at a no parking sign to save someone's life I'm pretty sure he's allowed to do it even if it violates the strict definition of the law.

This may not be a good example because I don't know if there's some specific law that allows ambulances to park wherever they want, but the point is that there are situations where the strict letter of the law is broken for certain reasons, and it's allowable.The law isn't meant to be taken as strictly as possible. It's more of a guideline to handle matters on a case by case basis.

[Charla]

I don't care about the sentence or consistency or anything. I made a simple statement, she broke the law, you're right "it's a matter of definition"...and by that definition, she broke the law. There is no legal argument against that fact.

Wait, you were serious? The law is the law is the law and that's the end of it? I just can't see that statement as anything other than a parody of institutional simplemindedness.