Child porn?

[Denur]

A 15 yo child is arrested for distributing child pornography, because she has send some nudy pics of herself to classmates. I mean, what the ****? She's bloody only 15 years old and having some fun with some peers. If she had been sending those pictures to undisclosed adults and charged money for it, Ok, than the police might have a case. But this is just sick.

Ohio teen charged for sending nude phone photos
10/8/2008, 3:02 p.m. EDT
The Associated Press

NEWARK, Ohio (AP) — Police in Newark, Ohio, have arrested a 15-year-old girl on juvenile child pornography charges for allegedly sending nude cell phone photos of herself to classmates.

The girl was arrested Friday and held over the weekend. Her defense filed denials in court Monday.

Police did not identify the girl by name and prosecutors promised a statement with details later Wednesday. Authorities were also considering charges for students who received the photos.

http://www.nj.com/newsflash/index.ssf?/base/national-111/122349235422450.xml&storylist=topstories

 

[nick09]

Well it is in school and they don't want any flashy parts to get the way of education.

 

[bergauk]

Oh cool, the kids that received the photos could get charged with something too. Way to go world. How the hell did the police find out about this anyways? Surely they weren't investigating this. I will say the girl is stupid for doing it. But why is SHE being charged with distributing herself? Thats just plain stupid.

Edit: Denur, change the title, it looks a bit risque`.

 

[Denur]

Edit: Denur, change the title, it looks a bit risque`.

Thanx for the warning, but I think that if even this very title is 'risky' and this topic gets a lock, that it just confirms my fear that the world is losing its grip on itself.

 

[Holdenhsvgtsr]

I mean, what the ****? She's bloody only 15 years old and having some fun with some peers.

Don't get what the problem is? she did something illegal she has to pay the consequences,if you don't want to don't do it.

 

[Danoff]

I agree that this is not justice. But I see the difficulties with trying to come up with a law that gets the people that need getting while ignoring situations like this.

See, if you make all underage persons immune to charges of this sort, you end up encouraging adults to use children to distribute pornography. But I do kinda think that's what needs to be done - immunity of children to any charges of this sort.

 

[Denur]

Don't get what the problem is? she did something illegal she has to pay the consequences,if you don't want to don't do it.

Illegal? bull, all she did was play doctor in a modern kind of way. A child needs room to learn all there is on the playground of sexuallity. All she did was use the means available now. It may not have been a smart thing to do, but to arrest her for it... It boggles my mind.

See, if you make all underage persons immune to charges of this sort, you end up encouraging adults to use children to distribute pornography.

I don't think that charges of this sort will stop foul people from forcing children to exploid themselves. This girl was just playing (unless we do not know the entire story yet).

 

[Speedy Samurai]

This kind of thing is an enormous problem in Japan. What will happen is young girls like this meet other people through sites accessed by cellphones. The young and impressionable are convinced to send images of themselves to the person on the other end, and once that is done the receiver usually blackmails her for more pictures by threatening to post them on the internet or show the girl's parents. A law like the one being discussed heavily dissuades the young, not emotionally mature, girls from sending pics of herself originally.

 

[Denur]

This kind of thing is an enormous problem in Japan. What will happen is young girls like this meet other people through sites accessed by cellphones. The young and impressionable are convinced to send images of themselves to the person on the other end, and once that is done the receiver usually blackmails her for more pictures by threatening to post them on the internet or show the girl's parents. A law like the one being discussed heavily dissuades the young, not emotionally mature, girls from sending pics of herself originally.

I agree that the risks for both child and parents are enormous and that children must be persuaded in any way possible not to take and send nude pictures of both themselves and others. I just don't like that children themselves are regarded as criminals in cases like this. Educate them, explain the possible consequences. If they still do it, well, Darwin has yet to be proven wrong.

 

[slowman]

double post... don't know why. Please delete...

 

[slowman]

If she is charged by the government, then she is screwed for life. I hope you all realize that she will have to register as a sex offender everywhere she goes until the day she dies.

Do you think ruining the rest of her life (long-term) is going to "teach her a lesson" (short term)?

This is sick to think that charging her is ok, and I think the publicity this has generated is punishment enough.

Please don't take the law and order stance on this either; you are ALL "guilty" of breaking laws you don't like. I don't follow any of the laws that I don't like. So some people got together somewhere and wrote down some rules on a piece of paper... that doesn't bind me to it. I never signed that contract, and I don't consent to it.

 

[Danoff]

Please don't take the law and order stance on this either; you are ALL "guilty" of breaking laws you don't like.

That's not a defense, and it doesn't really appply.

I don't follow any of the laws that I don't like.

That reasoning doesn't excuse anyone.

So some people got together somewhere and wrote down some rules on a piece of paper... that doesn't bind me to it. I never signed that contract, and I don't consent to it.

By living here, you consent to it. The government can't take away your rights - so feel free to violate any law that you feel infringes on your rights. But just because you didn't "consent" to a law, that doesn't give you the right to violate the rights of others.

That being said, even if the law is wrong, one must consider the practical consequences of disobeying it.

 

[Wolfe]

So some people got together somewhere and wrote down some rules on a piece of paper... that doesn't bind me to it. I never signed that contract, and I don't consent to it.

Well...by living here, you've consigned yourself to our state and federal laws. The only other option is to move somewhere else (if only that was easy!).

 

[JCE]

I heard about this and thought WTF. Its just a teenage prank, completely harmless.

 

[slowman]

That's not a defense, and it doesn't really appply.



That reasoning doesn't excuse anyone.



By living here, you consent to it. The government can't take away your rights - so feel free to violate any law that you feel infringes on your rights. But just because you didn't "consent" to a law, that doesn't give you the right to violate the rights of others.

That being said, even if the law is wrong, one must consider the practical consequences of disobeying it.

Ah, but I *do* obey laws that infringe on the rights of others. I don't obey silly man laws, but I will NEVER infringe on the life, liberty, or property of another.

If none of you have noticed, the government takes away our rights all the time. They can't give rights, they can only "take them away".

2nd Amendement: The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. We have more than 20,000 gun laws in this country. So where did the infringing start? I'd be inclined to believe it was when the first law was written. That was one part of our Constitution that they have shat all over. Would you like me to continue?

As far as consenting by living in this country, I will refer you to this...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal[1], that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed[2], — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

1. No one is better than anyone else; no one has authority to institute law above me but not above them.

2. I do NOT consent, therefore they have no power above me.

I don't know if any of these founding documents mean anything to you guys, but I would venture a guess that we should hold ourselves to them.

 

[Duke]

Ah, but I *do* obey laws that infringe on the rights of others. I don't obey silly man laws, but I will NEVER infringe on the life, liberty, or property of another.

That's good to hear.

2. I do NOT consent, therefore they have no power above me.

Ehhh, I think you're taking a somewhat too literal stance on the Constitution, there, and I'm a pretty rabid supporter of the Constitution. I do not believe it was ever intended to be taken on an individual basis. If the people wish to change their laws and their government, the government itself does not have the power to prevent it. But I don't believe you can credibly extend that to mean "I disagree with these laws, therefore, they are not valid with regard to me."

 

[Famine]

I am, through unfamiliarity, not fully au fait with the US Constitution or Bill of Rights but I am wholly aware of Duke's and Danoff's position on liberty.

That said, I'm watching this thread with a pitcher of bitter, a bag of nachos and a big, red and blue pennant with two "D"s on it.

 

[slowman]

I am, through unfamiliarity, not fully au fait with the US Constitution or Bill of Rights but I am wholly aware of Duke's and Danoff's position on liberty.

That said, I'm watching this thread with a pitcher of bitter, a bag of nachos and a big, red and blue pennant with two "D"s on it.

Am I to take this to mean that continued debate on the subject could result in a padlock? That's not my intent, and I hope it doesn't go there.

My question though is about the consent... Where is the contract that obligates me to agree with ALL of the laws of the land? Is it somewhere with my name on it? I don't remember signing it.

Its ridiculous to suggest that I move elsewhere so I can be ruled by another country's abritrary laws.

My underlying message here is that a group of people have set up arbritary laws and a coercive system to enforce them. The only tool the government has at it's disposal is force. If I go 36 mph in a 35 mph zone, I can get a ticket. I can understand this rule in a residential neighborhood and I'd even be willing to respect it. It is likely a speed that the neighborhood agreed upon collectively when that neighborhood was formed. If I want to pass through, I would need to respect their wishes. What if I do it on a deserted country road at 2 in the morning. Who am I putting in danger besides myself? (And that IS my right)

This ticket that I will receive is basically a slip of paper that demands a tribute be payed to a group of rulers that wear silly black dresses. If I don't pay this tribute, they will send men with guns to my house to put me in a cage. A lot of the laws on the books exist only to feed the coffers of the state, so they can make more laws to feed their system infinitely. Kinda starting to look like a criminal gang, isn't it?

And that leads us full circle around to the case of this poor girl whose life is now ruined. Due to these SILLY MAN LAWS, she will have to register as a sex offender for the rest of her life. This will follow here everywhere. So who ruined her life? Her actions (which she consciously and knowlingly performed herself)? Or the actions of the legislators that created the silly man law in the first place?

 

[Danoff]

I don't obey silly man laws, but I will NEVER infringe on the life, liberty, or property of another.

Well then you'll have done nothing wrong - that doesn't mean you won't end up in jail though. For example, the government violates my rights every year when I pay taxes. It does so by refusing to offer equal treatment under the law - in effect, the government discriminates against me and charges me a great deal more than it charges most citizens (either in %, or $, regardless of which way you calculate it).

That law is certainly not one that I should have to follow - but it is the law, and by living here I agree to abide by the law. I shouldn't have to obey that law, but practically speaking it's a good idea to obey it.

Likewise if I visit China and grab an internet connection, I shouldn't have to tolerate their censorship, but under the threat of force, I must.

These would be great laws to protest, but one does so at the risk of being unjustly incarcerated. If you don't want to obey those laws, and you don't want to risk incarceration, go somewhere where they don't have such laws.

1. No one is better than anyone else; no one has authority to institute law above me but not above them.

Agreed. The bill of rights guarantees this.

2. I do NOT consent, therefore they have no power above me.

Uh... not quite. By living here you're "on notice" that such laws will be enforced against you. Your consent isn't really asked for, it's exists at the implied permission of the general population.

That said, I'm watching this thread with a pitcher of bitter, a bag of nachos and a big, red and blue pennant with two "D"s on it.

 

[FoolKiller]

I am confused as to why she is being charged. The purpose of government is to protect your rights from being infringed by others. How can you violate your own rights? If anything the government will be violating her rights as that sex offender label never goes away. Imagine her having to notify any neighbors that she photographed herself and was found guilty on child pornography charges.

And aren't sex offenders required to stay a certain distance away from schools? Will she even be allowed back into school?

Just a small quote to put this into perspective.

The care of every man's soul belongs to himself. But what if he neglect the care of it? Well what if he neglect the care of his health or his estate, which would more nearly relate to the state. Will the magistrate make a law that he not be poor or sick? Laws provide against injury from others; but not from ourselves. God himself will not save men against their wills.

My underlying message here is that a group of people have set up arbritary laws and a coercive system to enforce them. The only tool the government has at it's disposal is force. If I go 36 mph in a 35 mph zone, I can get a ticket. I can understand this rule in a residential neighborhood and I'd even be willing to respect it. It is likely a speed that the neighborhood agreed upon collectively when that neighborhood was formed. If I want to pass through, I would need to respect their wishes. What if I do it on a deserted country road at 2 in the morning. Who am I putting in danger besides myself?

I understand what you are getting at. There is a saying that most responsible laws are obeyed because reasonable people would act that way anyway, but if you obey a law simply because it is the law then it probably shouldn't be law.

The thing is though that if you just flauntingly disobey those laws you are not doing anything other than putting an end to your ability to speak out against said laws. You are creating a disservice to yourself and giving fodder to those that created the law by giving them an example to point at of why the law needs to be there.

 

[SolidSnake15]

My question though is about the consent... Where is the contract that obligates me to agree with ALL of the laws of the land? Is it somewhere with my name on it? I don't remember signing it.

Becoming a United States citizen, whether you where born into it or came from another country, binds you to the laws of the country. Even if you don't agree with with them, it's your responsibility to follow them.

They give us freedom of speech, the right to express our opinion on any subject at any time without out fear of punishment, which is limited. And as you mentioned the freedom to bear arms is infringed on. The government uses the word "freedom" in place of "privilege."

The truth is, we as U.S. citizens have little to no freedom at all. This is because the government can take away all of our freedoms with a snap of a finger. And if something can be taken away, then it's not a freedom, it's a privilege.

EDIT: Oops, forgot to type out the main topic of my post.

The girl sending pics of herself naked was an expression of her Freedom of Speech. The law against child porn infringes on this freedom.

 

[Duke]

Am I to take this to mean that continued debate on the subject could result in a padlock? That's not my intent, and I hope it doesn't go there.

I don't believe that he's upset about your debate itself, and I see no reason this thread would be closed so long as it stays A) non-explicit, and B) non-personal. So far it's been fine.
👍

My question though is about the consent... Where is the contract that obligates me to agree with ALL of the laws of the land? Is it somewhere with my name on it? I don't remember signing it.

Its ridiculous to suggest that I move elsewhere so I can be ruled by another country's abritrary laws.

It is an implied contract based on your desire to live here and your citizenship. You can renounce your citizenship, if you wish, but you are subject to the laws of whatever land you happen to be in at the moment, unless you have diplomatic immunity.

My underlying message here is that a group of people have set up arbritary laws and a coercive system to enforce them. The only tool the government has at it's disposal is force. If I go 36 mph in a 35 mph zone, I can get a ticket. I can understand this rule in a residential neighborhood and I'd even be willing to respect it. It is likely a speed that the neighborhood agreed upon collectively when that neighborhood was formed. If I want to pass through, I would need to respect their wishes. What if I do it on a deserted country road at 2 in the morning. Who am I putting in danger besides myself? (And that IS my right)

You're endangering the pedestrian or cyclist that you may not see, out enjoying a midnight walk. You're endangering the property of the people on either side of the road, if you fly off and hit something. You're endangering the traffic or disabled motorist you might not be aware of just around that blind corner.

On your property, in your property, you have the right to endanger yourself as much as you wish. But not so on public property - the highway right-of-way.

This ticket that I will receive is basically a slip of paper that demands a tribute be payed to a group of rulers that wear silly black dresses. If I don't pay this tribute, they will send men with guns to my house to put me in a cage. A lot of the laws on the books exist only to feed the coffers of the state, so they can make more laws to feed their system infinitely. Kinda starting to look like a criminal gang, isn't it?

Then you'd better start voting and campaigning to change the system, get elected, or be prepared to start a coup to overthrow it. You have the Constitutional right to attempt all of the above. You still do not have the Constitutional right to simply ignore laws that you do not like.

And that leads us full circle around to the case of this poor girl whose life is now ruined. Due to these SILLY MAN LAWS, she will have to register as a sex offender for the rest of her life. This will follow here everywhere. So who ruined her life? Her actions (which she consciously and knowlingly performed herself)? Or the actions of the legislators that created the silly man law in the first place?

Mostly herself; partly an ambiguous if well-intentioned law. You cannot remove her from blame for her actions, however, even if the law is operating in a way it was not intended.

@ FK: In a way, since she is a minor, she has statutorily raped herself. She consented to the pictures since she took them and distributed them, but she was not of legal age to make that consent. It is an odd situation, indeed.

 

[FoolKiller]

@ FK: In a way, since she is a minor, she has statutorily raped herself. She consented to the pictures since she took them and distributed them, but she was not of legal age to make that consent. It is an odd situation, indeed.

See, I don't get it. Yes, she sent pornographic images of a minor, but they were of herself. I would think that this be a case where punishment is best left up to the parents, or the parents are put on some sort of notice.

I am having trouble wrapping my head around this. Even if some form of legal action is required against her I think a charge that places her on a sex offender list is a bit extreme.

At a minimum, like many juvenile cases, this should go away when she turns 18. But even then if this puts her on some sort of registry it limits her abilities to do things that kids do, like school.


And if this can count as statutorily raping herself then what does that mean for kids that <think of tasteful way to say it> become curious about their own bodies? I can't fathom a way that someone can sexually harm themselves that would be considered illegal.

And at that I am pretty sure that the whole case is based on distribution, in which case it still seems odd. What happens when kids get in that "show me yours and I will show you mine" situation? Is this any different, except now we have the technology to make it possible without being in the same room?


Parents. Let the parents deal with it. Even have them monitored for a while to make sure that it isn't an issue of some kind of parental neglect, if you must, but I think the possible results of her being found guilty far outweigh the wrongness in what she did.

 

[Famine]

Am I to take this to mean that continued debate on the subject could result in a padlock? That's not my intent, and I hope it doesn't go there.

Not at all. More that I'm going to have fun watching it.

 

[slowman]

With respect to the OP, I think this topic was going a bit off-topic. I'll even take part of the blame for it. I'd like to tie up a few loose ends here though...

You're endangering the pedestrian or cyclist that you may not see, out enjoying a midnight walk. You're endangering the property of the people on either side of the road, if you fly off and hit something. You're endangering the traffic or disabled motorist you might not be aware of just around that blind corner.

I was never referring to going 100 mph down that country road. If the speed limit on that country road was 45 (common here), and I was going 46, who am I hurting? What if the speed limit on that same road was 5 mph, and I went 6? That would be ridiculous to have a 5 mph road, but it is STILL breaking the law in that instance. Would you endorse the government stealing my money or throwing me in a cage for it?

Keep in mind that I will not drive irresponsibly or in a way that could put someone else in danger. If I can't see a potential pedestrian, I'm not going to be going super fast. I won't just dive into blind corners either.

However, to the people that think that I am bound to this country's laws automatically...

Unalienable rights and a constitutional government are supposed to exist here. Believe me, I&#8217;m not unhappy with the way this country was set up. I&#8217;m not unhappy with our Constitution. I&#8217;m not the one trying to change these things. You are. You&#8217;re the one unhappy with the United States. What you should be doing is trying to think of what you want to change this country into, and I guarantee there&#8217;s already a place just like it somewhere else in the world. Then, please, take your own advice, and go there. Let me stay here.

&#8220;And to prove to you what a good friend I am, let&#8217;s go to your house&#8212;now. I&#8217;ll help you pack your bags. I&#8217;ll even drive you to the airport.&#8221;

As far as the original topic is concerned... when this is all said and done and if she is charged, then who ruined her life? Her exercising her right to freedom of expression, or the government sex offense policy?

 

[homeforsummer]

Does the justice system (do any justice systems, may I add) not draw a line between nudity and pornography, or are they considered one and the same? I consider there to be a reasonable difference between nudity and pornography but we don't know all the details of this case. There is no mention in the article that the images were actually pornographic, just "nude".

Are they charging the girl on pornography charges because they don't have a "happy medium" charge between letting her off with a slap on the wrist, and an actual charge of posession of indecent images of a child?

There are so many grey areas - but I think it's quite harsh handing her such a serious charge, when she's still just a child/juvenile.

It's also quite unlucky for her, as I doubt she's the only 15 year old in the world ever to have done such a thing.

 

[Danoff]

Does the justice system (do any justice systems, may I add) not draw a line between nudity and pornography, or are they considered one and the same? I consider there to be a reasonable difference between nudity and pornography but we don't know all the details of this case. There is no mention in the article that the images were actually pornographic, just "nude".

Yes, there is a distinction drawn between nudity and pornography... and it's not easy to know which way the court will interpret it.

My guess is that since this is not artistic or instructional in nature - but, rather, for the purpose of arousal, it will be considered pornographic. If she had been mooning the camera for the purpose of insulting them - it might be different. (I haven't read the details of the case so, for all I know, that could be what happened)

 

[SolidSnake15]

Not at all. More that I'm going to have fun watching it.

Your a dirty man... joking, I know what your talking about

Even if some form of legal action is required against her I think a charge that places her on a sex offender list is a bit extreme.

I do agree it is a little extreme. She wasn't sexually offending anybody, so being labeled as a sex offender would be kind of wrong.(duh)

The legal system can be a little weird sometimes.

 

[Duke]

I agree wholeheartedly that this is a weird case caught in an ambiguous law. She should not be a sex offender, since they are photos she took of herself... but opening the law to exempt minors is NOT the proper answer, either.

I was never referring to going 100 mph down that country road. If the speed limit on that country road was 45 (common here), and I was going 46, who am I hurting? What if the speed limit on that same road was 5 mph, and I went 6? That would be ridiculous to have a 5 mph road, but it is STILL breaking the law in that instance. Would you endorse the government stealing my money or throwing me in a cage for it?

If you break the law you are subject to the penalties that go with it. I'm sorry, that's just the way it is. You are constitutionally protected from cruel and unusual punishements, so you are unlikely to get locked in a cage for 1 mph over the speed limit. You also have the right to plead innocent to the charge and try your luck in front of a judge - due process.

1 mph over the speed limit is still over the speed limit. And you are not judged as harshly for going 1 mph over as you would be for 20 over or 40 over.

If you think the law needs to be changed - the speed limit needs to be raised, or whatever - then campaign to CHANGE IT. But you cannot simply decide that you only are governed by the laws you like.

Keep in mind that I will not drive irresponsibly or in a way that could put someone else in danger.

Irrelevant. If you are over the speed limit you are breaking the law, and running the risk of a penalty. As I've said, if you disagree with the law, work to get it changed.

However, to the people that think that I am bound to this country's laws automatically...

I don't get what that quote is supposed to be saying on this subject. You ARE automatically bound by the laws of this country if you are within its borders. That's not an opinion. That is a fact. If you went to Canada you would be bound by all of the laws of Canada. If you went to Madigascar, you would be bound by all of the laws of Madigascar.

You don't get to choose which ones you agree to. You just get to try to convince people to change them if you think they are wrong.

 

[BayConRong]

If that's a chargable case then almost every guy in my school is guilty of possesing and distributing child porn. Almost all of them have a nude pic of thier girlfriend and a couple of them share the pics with eachother.

If that is child porn aren't little pictures of you in the bathtub naked while your a baby technically child porn. If you had taken naked pictures of yourself when you were younger and kept them until you were older is also child porn.

I think a reasonable question is does the punishment fit the crime? I knew a man that used to work at my uncle's medical cabulance, he was like a class D sex offender (I don't remember the specifics, it was simply the lowest classification. he never went to jail.) I was actually good friends with him for 7 years, from when i was about 6. I would never have suspected him of being a sex offender until about 9 years later when i was talking with my grandmother and she told me what he was. He never, ever did anything to me, and I would support him until the end of his days because I was good friends with him, and I felt that the punishment delivered upon him did not fit his crime.