15-year-old girl prosecuted for child porn

[istara]

Here. (http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/36804.html)
[quote]A 15 year-old American girl has been charged with child pornography offences after posting pictures of herself online.

<snip>

The teenager has been charged with the possession and distribution of child pornography as well as the sexual abuse of children.[/url]
Words fucking fail.

[istara]

If a mod would fix that coding I would be very grateful.

That is what comes of tying when really, really mad and apalled.

[Lord Ashtar]

I think I know the answer, but I'll ask the question anyway.

Why exactly does this make you so angry?

[heresiarch]

Are you mad because of what she did, or because you don't think she should have been charged with anything?The teenager has been charged with the possession and distribution of child pornography as well as the sexual abuse of children. Personally, I don't think the charge of sexual abuse of child is pretty stupid, but I don't see a problem with charging her with distributing child pornography.

[istara]

What is more likely:

1. The "forced" some "unwanted" pics of herself on a load of innocent, angel-faced 12-year-old boys?

2. Some sleazy shits, most probably Studabaker-types in their 30s/40s/50s, won her confidence, probably lied about their ages to her, encouraged and groomed her to take those pics in the first place?

How the fuck does proscuting the VICTIM of fucking child abuse help catch murdering, raping, child-molesting, PAEDOPHILES?

[heresiarch]

Rats! Please disregard that first "don't".

It should read: Personally, I think the charge of sexual abuse of child is pretty stupid, but I don't see a problem with charging her with distributing child pornography.

[dublos]

I'm having a little trouble with this myself.

She is by law a child. Therefore naked/sexual pictures of her are child pornography.. I'm understand this so far.

She took them herself and posted them on the internet/sent them to people from chat rooms.

That's distribution of child pornography alright, and she is a child, i.e. of a protected class that child pornography laws were enacted to protect.

I'm hoping they are charging her with these things in order to learn why she's doing this since it seems more of a cry for help than a 15 year old trying to get a jump start a lucrative porn career. (Italicized for the sarcasm impared)

If on the other hand they are doing this to make an example of her and hope this prevents other 15 year old from doing the same thing then I think it's a sad day for the american justice system.

I'd certainly like to know if her parents are being charged with anything.. unfortunately simply being an inattentive/bad parent isn't in and of itself illegal.

[Casey1505]

Seems like you're reading an awful lot into 8 1/2 column lines.

[GaWd]

I'm having a little trouble with this myself.

She is by law a child. Therefore naked/sexual pictures of her are child pornography.. I'm understand this so far.

She took them herself and posted them on the internet/sent them to people from chat rooms.

That's distribution of child pornography alright, and she is a child, i.e. of a protected class that child pornography laws were enacted to protect.

I'm hoping they are charging her with these things in order to learn why she's doing this since it seems more of a cry for help than a 15 year old trying to get a jump start a lucrative porn career. (Italicized for the sarcasm impared)

If on the other hand they are doing this to make an example of her and hope this prevents other 15 year old from doing the same thing then I think it's a sad day for the american justice system.



These are my logical questions/feelings on the matter. WTF is going on here?

Sam

[The Man With The Golden Gun]

Not to suggest anything about myself, but if this case holds, I'm probably going to be in deep shit. :D

[tdn]

Sounds pretty over the top to me. As if an overzealous DA wanted to prosecute any scum-sucking middle-aged male prevert he could find, regardless of the sicko's age and/or gender.

This, of course, based on a small article that lacks any sort of detail.

[BlackKnight]

I guess I should turn myself in for what I did when I was 16. :eek:

[Zoff]

Well, I hate to be a spoilsport, but waiting for some actual facts couldn't hurt.

[tomndebb]

Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Mar 27: Police said the girl was charged with possession and dissemination of child pornography. (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/search/s_186625.html)

WPXI Pittsburgh, (radio? TV?), Mar 27: The girl is charged with possession and dissemination of child pornography. (http://www.wpxi.com/news/2954803/detail.html)

USA Today, Mar 29: She has been charged with sexual abuse of children, possession of child pornography and dissemination of child pornography. (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/webguide/internetlife/2004-03-29-child-self-porn_x.htm)

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Apr 05: She has been charged with sexual abuse of children, possession of child pornography and dissemination of child pornography. (http://www.post-gazette.com/breaking/20040329pornp6.asp)



It seems the later the story, the greater the charges against her. More information? More charges by prosecutor? More rumors?

[Larry Mudd]

It seems the later the story, the greater the charges against her. More information? More charges by prosecutor? More rumors?The child sexual abuse charges came after they noticed she was touching herself in some of the photos, obviously.

That's logical, isn't it?

[UncleBeer]

Some sleazy shits, most probably Studabaker-types in their 30s/40s/50s . . .
What's a Studebaker-type?

[Otto]

From the PA statutes (http://members.aol.com/StatutesP5/18PA6312.html): § 6312. Sexual abuse of children.
(a) Definition.--As used in this section, "prohibited sexual act" means sexual intercourse as defined in section 3101 (relating to definitions), masturbation, sadism, masochism, bestiality, fellatio, cunnilingus, lewd exhibition of the genitals or nudity if such nudity is depicted for the purpose of sexual stimulation or gratification of any person who might view such depiction.

(b) Photographing, videotaping, depicting on computer or filming sexual acts.--Any person who causes or knowingly permits a child under the age of 18 years to engage in a prohibited sexual act or in the simulation of such act is guilty of a felony of the second degree if such person knows, has reason to know or intends that such act may be photographed, videotaped, depicted on computer or filmed. Any person who knowingly photographs, videotapes, depicts on computer or films a child under the age of 18 years engaging in a prohibited sexual act or in the simulation of such an act is guilty of a felony of the second degree.

(c) Dissemination of photographs, videotapes, computer depictions and films.--Any person who knowingly sells, distributes, delivers, disseminates, transfers, displays or exhibits to others, or who possesses for the purpose of sale, distribution, delivery, dissemination, transfer, display or exhibition to others, any book, magazine, pamphlet, slide, photograph, film, videotape, computer depiction or other material depicting a child under the age of 18 years engaging in a prohibited sexual act or in the simulation of such act is guilty of a felony of the third degree.

(d) Possession of child pornography.--Any person who knowingly possesses or controls any book, magazine, pamphlet, slide, photograph, film, videotape, computer depiction or other material depicting a child under the age of 18 years engaging in a prohibited sexual act or in the simulation of such act is guilty of a felony of the third degree. There does not appear to be a loophole allowing minors to possess naked pictures of themselves, thus the minor in question can legitimately be charged with sexual abuse of a child.

How the fuck does proscuting the VICTIM of fucking child abuse help catch murdering, raping, child-molesting, PAEDOPHILES? Man, I really hope it turns out this girl did this all of her own free will. If for no oher reason than to metaphorically shove this shit directly down your throat.

[GorillaMan]

What's a Studebaker-type?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1184781,00.html

[MrTuffPaws]

This is BS. The child porn charges are fucking insane. She, even though a child, did this of her own free will. Isn't the whole argument against kiddy porn is that it harms the childern because they are forced into it? Fuck, charge her with being a dumbass, but the child porn charges are will just ruin her life.

[Master Wang-Ka]

Um.... now this is just weird.

How does one charge someone with sexually abusing themselves? This is just surreal, here.

True, she could be charged with possession of kiddie porn.... and it sure SOUNDS like kiddie porn, based on what I'm hearing, here... and she was, sho'nuff, disseminating it across the internet...

...although I'm a bit slow to go berserk, here. I dunno about HER state, but anyone who got hit with that in Texas would basically be screwed until age eighteen... at which point, she would be released from whatever detention she was in, and her records would be sealed.

Of course, three years of jail for posting nekkid pictures of yourself on the internet seems a bit harsh to hammer a fifteen-year-old for. I'd be more interested in nailing the pervos who (I suspect) incited her to do so. Perhaps this is why they're slammin' the charges down: to get her to spill what she knows. If this led to some kind of porn ring, I'd happily put the screws to her until she decided to bargain.

If it was some sort of silly innocent thing with no over-eighteen pervos involved, though, I'd say this is insane.

Who took the pictures, anyway? Or was this webcam stuff?

And I flatly would not find her guilty of abusing a child. Nope. Sorry. Not even goin' there.

[erislover]

What kind of world is it when fifteen year olds are interested in human sexuality? I'm shocked. Shocked. I think we should all be prosecuted.

[GaWd]

So if touching yourself while under the age of 18 is "child abuse", what is masturbation? We've got millions of child abusers, millions I tell ya...

THis is just so wacky! How does one "abuse" themselves, and disseminate said images of themselves as a minor and get charged with this crap?

Sam

[The world's most deadliest...]

The Man with the Golden Gun and BlackKnight, while only trying to make a funny (probably), are hitting pretty close to the truth of the matter.

As usual, I'll preface this possibly flameworthy opinion by stating that I am completely and totally against child pornography in any way shape or form. I was abused as a 5 year old and I know first hand the scars that sexual abuse leaves, especially at a child's age. If I ever found someone abusing/molesting/involving my child in pornography, I'd probably end up in jail for life because of my actions.

BUT...there is a BIG difference between child pornography and what this girl is doing. Not legally - until she hits the big 1-8 she is a child - but let's look at this from a few alternate standpoints besides the legal one.

1. She is 15. In all likelihood, she has reached the age of menstruation. Which is your body's way of telling you that you are ready to become pregnant. To become pregnant, YOU MUST HAVE SEX. Which is exactly what her hormones are telling her to do. Physically/sexually, she is an adult. Of course, in our society (and most every other society today) she is not considered mentally an adult, and therefore needs protection. She's 15, she shouldn't be having sex, she's too young for the responsibility, older men could easily take advantage of her - I agree with all those statements. However it also didn't stop me and many others from losing their virginity at age 14, cause I was HORNY. Once you start having sexual urges - once you enter your childbearing years - I think the label of "child pornography" should be tossed aside. Paedophilia is an attraction to children. Once you hit puberty, you're no longer physically a child. I'm not saying its right, but don't attach the stigma of child pornography to an issue of a clueless 15-year-old exploring her own sexuality.

2. I have a big problem with the "either-or" nature of the child porno laws. Either you're under 18 and therefore a child, or you're over 18 and therefore an adult. Sorry, life is rarely so cut and dried, and there are ways around this (to a certain extent). How? It's all in the perception. Traci Lords got away with this for years. She didn't have the stereotypical teenager's body - she looked like a fully developed adult. Because she also acted and spoke like an adult, the perception was completed and people took it at face value.

I have met (and up until about 4 years ago, I was one of them) women who are well past the age of 18 and yet they look about 15 or 16. Small boned, fine-featured, petite, etc. They just give off the impression that they are much younger than they are. Throw them in the appropriate outfit and hairstyle and they could pass for even younger. And certain pornography outlets take advantage of models with these features - they proclaim "barely legal" but the effect they are trying to achieve is much younger than that. (Pigtails, sucking on lollipops, baby-doll dresses, etc.) So, legally there's no child porno, but the pictures are designed to titillate the paedophile or border-paedophile. Why the fuck is THAT legal? That's just as disgusting as true child pornography - in some ways it is more so, because it involves the implicit approval of the model, who, if she's over 18, must know what she's doing because she's an adult, right? :confused:

I know, I know, no system is ever perfect. But we approve the pictoral infantalization of sexuality because it involves "two consenting adults" - we charge the 15 year old for child pornography because she's becoming sexually aware of herself and doesn't know what to do about it (parents, where are you?) - I think sometimes we really have legislated common sense out of existance.

[erislover]

we charge the 15 year old for child pornography because she's becoming sexually aware of herself and doesn't know what to do about it...I think she knew what to do about it. Well, except that she could have been stockpiling cash for her legal defense in the meantime, but we all learn our lessons.

[The world's most deadliest...]

Originally posted by erislover:
I think she knew what to do about it. Well, except that she could have been stockpiling cash for her legal defense in the meantime, but we all learn our lessons.

Building my legal defense fund from a young age is the most important piece of advice that no one ever gave me. Where were you 15 years ago, erislover? :confused:

[Otto]

So if touching yourself while under the age of 18 is "child abuse", what is masturbation? We've got millions of child abusers, millions I tell ya...

THis is just so wacky! How does one "abuse" themselves, and disseminate said images of themselves as a minor and get charged with this crap? Under the statute I posted it's clear that masturbation in and of itself does not constitute the offense. What is required under the statute is the recording of said masturbation or other "prohibited sexual act." If she took naked pictures of herself and distributed them with the intent of inciting sexual arousal in others, she's guilty.

[GaWd]

Under the statute I posted it's clear that masturbation in and of itself does not constitute the offense. What is required under the statute is the recording of said masturbation or other "prohibited sexual act." If she took naked pictures of herself and distributed them with the intent of inciting sexual arousal in others, she's guilty.

Sorry, should have read more carefully.

Sam

[erislover]

Building my legal defense fund from a young age is the most important piece of advice that no one ever gave me. Where were you 15 years ago, erislover? :confused:Thinking about sex. Lesse, I would have been thirteen then, that would put me in, er, eigth grade. So, yep, about three short months before the glorious loss of my otherwise useless virginity.

Kids! :D

[elfbabe]

Istara, there are PLENTY of 15-year-old girls who will not only take and distribute sexual photos of themselves, but who will FIGHT, tooth and nail, for the "right" to do so. I used to work on the abuse team for LiveJournal, and oh god, the underage boobies. At least when I was there, we considered them such a danger to the site (since they WERE child porn) that we'd suspend their accounts as soon as we saw the pictures and evidence of their age. And then the whining would begin. We couldn't censor them, they had free speech. It's just nudity, we must be some kind of prudes. They have their nipples barely covered with black electrical tape, so it's not illegal because they're not naked. They were going to make the entries friends only, then it wouldn't matter. Also we were Nazis.

I'm sure that there ARE skeevy older guys who coax underage girls into taking pictures, but there are also lots of underage girls who get the idea all on their own. I'm glad this girl's being prosecuted, though not for the sexual abuse part.

[erislover]

I'm glad this girl's being prosecuted, though not for the sexual abuse part.For which part, then? What lesson do you want her to learn, exactly?

[The world's most deadliest...]

Thinking about sex. Lesse, I would have been thirteen then, that would put me in, er, eigth grade. So, yep, about three short months before the glorious loss of my otherwise useless virginity. Kids!
erislover, thanks for taking my statements with a sense of humor (always appreciated), and for proving the first half of my point. Teenagers are HORNY, where do these movie executives think the stereotypical horny teen came from? You can try to protect them, guide them, and in cases of total parental neglect, you can legally try to prevent them from fucking anything that walks. But that, in my book, isn't the same as paedophilia.

(I'll save my rant against the Hollywood/TV portrayal of sexually active teens in a society where their actions are technically illegal/child porno for another Pit thread.)

Originally quoted by elfbabe:
Istara, there are PLENTY of 15-year-old girls who will not only take and distribute sexual photos of themselves, but who will FIGHT, tooth and nail, for the "right" to do so. I used to work on the abuse team for LiveJournal, and oh god, the underage boobies. At least when I was there, we considered them such a danger to the site (since they WERE child porn) that we'd suspend their accounts as soon as we saw the pictures and evidence of their age. And then the whining would begin. We couldn't censor them, they had free speech. It's just nudity, we must be some kind of prudes. They have their nipples barely covered with black electrical tape, so it's not illegal because they're not naked. They were going to make the entries friends only, then it wouldn't matter. Also we were Nazis.

Again, my point. Hell, I'm twenty-seven and consider myself reasonably kinky and I've NEVER put black electrical tape on my nipples. Those chicks might not know what they want but they know how to get it. And one would hope they would read up a little on Nazis before throwing that comment around. Dipshit kids :D

I'm glad this girl's being prosecuted, though not for the sexual abuse part.

I agree there should be a law against these kids opening themselves up to predators and the general embarrassment of knowing hundreds of old skeevy men whacked off to your naked photos when you were 15 and too shortsighted to see the negative repercussions of your little "photo shoot". Just save the label of child porno for stuff that really IS child porno.

[elfbabe]

For which part, then? What lesson do you want her to learn, exactly?

Possession and dissemination of child pornography. If she doesn't get in trouble with the law for this, what's going to discourage other 15-year-olds with the same idea from distributing pictures of themselves? Even if what she did was entirely her own idea, she's getting the people she sent pictures to in a LOT of trouble. (Notice that police are trying to find all the people she sent them to.) Yes, some of them may well deserve it, but if you were a teenage boy and a hot girl about your age offered to send YOU some naked pictures, you probably wouldn't think of it as illegal child porn. You'd think of it as the best thing to happen to you in a long time. ;) I'm also concerned that not prosecuting girls who took pictures all on their own may make it more difficult to prosecute things that the laws were meant to prevent - like young teenagers being coerced into this. How're we supposed to tell which pictures are which?

[istara]

Istara, there are PLENTY of 15-year-old girls who will not only take and distribute sexual photos of themselves, but who will FIGHT, tooth and nail, for the "right" to do so.

<snip>

I'm sure that there ARE skeevy older guys who coax underage girls into taking pictures, but there are also lots of underage girls who get the idea all on their own. I'm glad this girl's being prosecuted, though not for the sexual abuse part.
I don't dispute that she may have been entirely complicit and willing to create and distribute these photos. But at the end of the day, let us look at these scenarios:

1. 21-year-old female takes nekkid pics of herself, sends to internet friends

2. 18-year-old female takes nekkid pics of herself, sends to internet friends

3. 15-year-old female takes nekkid pics of herself, sends to internet friends

So whereas the others would get away scot free, the youngest - the minor - the juvenile - gets charged with an ADULT crime, even though as a younger person there should be more tolerance of her misdemeanours.

And to try and give what is at worst a precocious, 15-year-old exhibitionist with the same sort of criminal record as an adult who takes sexual pictures of a little child, or make a little child perform sexual activity, or who abuses, maims, rapes and harms children is just an abomination.

What - will this girl have to sign the sex offenders register? It just defeats the whole fucking point of trying to track down paedophiles, if the same list that contains people like Studabaker contains also their prospective victims. Prosecute the ADULTS who allowed her to send them this stuff - maybe, if they encouraged her. Get this girl to meet a few rape victims, victims of paedophila, give her a stern telling off and a fine, and leave her be.

[erislover]

Possession and dissemination of child pornography. If she doesn't get in trouble with the law for this, what's going to discourage other 15-year-olds with the same idea from distributing pictures of themselves?Nothing?
Even if what she did was entirely her own idea, she's getting the people she sent pictures to in a LOT of trouble. (Notice that police are trying to find all the people she sent them to.)Trouble you want them to be in?
Yes, some of them may well deserve it, but if you were a teenage boy and a hot girl about your age offered to send YOU some naked pictures, you probably wouldn't think of it as illegal child porn. You'd think of it as the best thing to happen to you in a long time. ;)Hell yeah, I would have! :D
How're we supposed to tell which pictures are which?Evidence beyond a reasonable doubt?

[BlinkingDuck]

Charging a minor for a crime as an adult when it wouldn't have been a crime if she had been an adult is......

:confused:

If she distributed it for profit.....

If she distributed other kids nude pictures....

fine.....but if all she did was distribute pictures of herself just to show herself off or for titilation then prosecute her in juvenile court if it needs to be prosecuted.

[Zoff]

What - will this girl have to sign the sex offenders register? It just defeats the whole fucking point of trying to track down paedophiles, if the same list that contains people like Studabaker contains also their prospective victims. Prosecute the ADULTS who allowed her to send them this stuff - maybe, if they encouraged her. Get this girl to meet a few rape victims, victims of paedophila, give her a stern telling off and a fine, and leave her be.

A couple of points. First, we have no idea what her actions were. She could have replied to a pedophile or she could have sent these to people in a non-pedophile chatroom, one of whom complained. I'm not saying that's what happened, I'm saying some relevant facts are necessary before pontificating.

Second, you say you want to fine her, get her to meet victims and/or giver her a stern telling off, but you need to convict her of something if you want to force her to do anything. We have absolutely no idea what's going on or what the prosecutors plan to do. It's possible that they are charging her as a type of intervention so they can do exactly what you say they should do.

We simply don't know what's going on. This could be part of a bigger investigation and they are charging her in order to get her cooperation to go after bigger fish. Let's just hold off. You have listed some scenarios, but they are by no means exclusive.

[Master Wang-Ka]

Well, first of all, underage girls do not have the right to distribute nekkid pictures of themselves over the internet.

1. They're underage, and therefore presumed to be incompetent. This is why we don't let them drive or drink, I understand.

2. This opens the door for every sleazebag in the world to be totally innocent if he convinces some dippy teener to spread 'em for the webcam. This is not acceptable, particularly in view of how many of the sleazebags are dads and stepdads.

3. This opens the door for every conniving teener in the world to email ME pictures of her nipples, and then report me for being a kiddie porn solicitor if I don't immediately come up with my credit cards.

This being said, I really don't think we need to be holding kids to the same standards as we would forty-year-old porno freaks, either. The assumption should be that, while the law was broken, it was broken by someone not really competent or able to grasp the totality of what was being done. This is generally the case with MOST juvie crime, and I don't see where kiddie porn is any different. Saddling this dippy child with a sex crime record, I think, would be a bad thing. Hell, let her serve a week in the county jail, and I think MOST fifteen-year-old girls would never dream of doing it again...

[Otto]

(I'll save my rant against the Hollywood/TV portrayal of sexually active teens in a society where their actions are technically illegal/child porno for another Pit thread.) Save it in its entirety, filed under "wrong information, rant does not apply."

[Otto]

Saddling this dippy child with a sex crime record, I think, would be a bad thing. Hell, let her serve a week in the county jail, and I think MOST fifteen-year-old girls would never dream of doing it again... How do you get her jail time unless she's convicted of something, and how do you convict her of something without charging her, and what other crime would you suggest charging her with?

[The world's most deadliest...]

Originally posted by Otto :
How do you get her jail time unless she's convicted of something, and how do you convict her of something without charging her, and what other crime would you suggest charging her with?

Otto, would you (or would you not) support a new law (or support amending the child pornography laws) to cover the situation that seems to be the cause of debate in this thread? I agree with all your points so far - logically, within the framework of the legal system, I believe that all she deserves is education and a slap on the wrist. Under our current child pornography laws (and I'm extremely thankful that they are in place) she could conceivably be charged with a felony, be put on the sex offenders list, etc. Would you favor a new legal response to the debated circumstances?

Myself, I would have to say I do, but I'd like to hear your opinion. If our assumptions are incorrect about the situation of this girl, then I would assume other child porn laws would apply (if she was forced, coerced, what have you.)

[labmonkey]

Just to state the obvious(in my opinion) a fifteen year old savvy, sexually aware, and willing enough to post pics of herself masturbating online is a child ? As in the kind that ask for Barbie for Christmas, etc ? Oh the humanity! :rolleyes:

[elfbabe]

what's going to discourage other 15-year-olds with the same idea from distributing pictures of themselves?
Nothing?

Exactly. And I hope we can agree that 15-year-olds taking naked pictures of themselves and distributing them is something that should be discouraged... right?


she's getting the people she sent pictures to in a LOT of trouble.
Trouble you want them to be in?

Some of them probably do deserve it. Some of them probably don't. I'll be glad if this catches a couple of bona fide perverts, but I don't think it's going to be clear-cut like that.


How're we supposed to tell which pictures are which?
Evidence beyond a reasonable doubt?

My point is that it would make things more difficult, both in the investigation and the prosecution, if we were to turn a blind eye to some underage boobies but not to others.

[elfbabe]

Otto, would you (or would you not) support a new law (or support amending the child pornography laws) to cover the situation that seems to be the cause of debate in this thread?

I certainly would. A fine and some community service or something would be the best way to handle it, I think.

[furt]

I used to work on the abuse team for LiveJournal, and oh god, the underage boobies.Are they hiring?

joking, joking...

there are PLENTY of 15-year-old girls who will not only take and distribute sexual photos of themselves, but who will FIGHT, tooth and nail, for the "right" to do so..Which is why this has to be prosecuted. There are thousands of ordinary schoolgoirls in Japan who sell themselves into prostitution so they can afford new cellphones. I have no doubt that there are girls who would sell nudie shots of themselves. I also have no doubt that real child porn dealers will use it as a workaround.

Prosecute the girl to send a message, then suspend the sentance to deal with her as an individual.

[Otto]

Otto, would you (or would you not) support a new law (or support amending the child pornography laws) to cover the situation that seems to be the cause of debate in this thread? Amend them how?
I agree with all your points so far - logically, within the framework of the legal system, I believe that all she deserves is education and a slap on the wrist. Under our current child pornography laws (and I'm extremely thankful that they are in place) she could conceivably be charged with a felony, be put on the sex offenders list, etc. Would you favor a new legal response to the debated circumstances? Not really, no, because I don't think she's going to be convicted of the charges brought against her. I think she's going to get a lawyer who's going to plea bargain away the felony charges and leave her with a misdemeanor juvie record which will be sealed. I also think that any plea is going to require her to cooperate with any investigation into th recipients of her pictures. If the pictures were unsolicited then the recipients shouldn't be charged; if they solicited them knowing she was underage then they should be charged.

Age of consent is for me a difficult question. One the one hand I think it's ridicuolus that an arbitrary age is set and one day either side of the line is the difference between "child" and "adult." On the other hand I recognize that society is going to create an arbitrary demarcation because there is simply no convenient (or, probably, constitutional) way to decide on a case-by-case, person-by-person basis "this 15-year-old girl or boy is emotionally capable of consenting to sex or being photographed and that one isn't."

[elfbabe]

Are they hiring?

Always. It's a 20-hour-a-week volunteer job with few perks and people swear at you all the time and call you a terrible person. Still interested? :p

[The world's most deadliest...]

Originally Posted by Otto: Not really, no, because I don't think she's going to be convicted of the charges brought against her. I think she's going to get a lawyer who's going to plea bargain away the felony charges and leave her with a misdemeanor juvie record which will be sealed.

While I agree that this will likely be the case in this situation, I have to question the effectiveness of bringing up felony/child porn charges against subsequent instances of this type - every time - because there are no other laws that would apply to someone under 18 who decides to take/share naked pictures of themselves. (Not to mention those who, for whatever reason, do not have the option of the plea bargain available to them.) "Child porn" is a pretty heavy charge to lay on someone, and to respect the seriousness of the crime, I would rather have it levied against those for whom it was designed. Therefore, for the sake of both justice and brevity, a new classification of this crime might be in order.

If the pictures were unsolicited then the recipients shouldn't be charged; if they solicited them knowing she was underage then they should be charged.

Age of consent is for me a difficult question. One the one hand I think it's ridicuolus that an arbitrary age is set and one day either side of the line is the difference between "child" and "adult."

Agreed, and agreed. (see previous posts)

On the other hand I recognize that society is going to create an arbitrary demarcation because there is simply no convenient (or, probably, constitutional) way to decide on a case-by-case, person-by-person basis "this 15-year-old girl or boy is emotionally capable of consenting to sex or being photographed and that one isn't."


I absolutely agree. There is no way to judge the emotional capability of any teenager in regards to readiness for sex or sexual situations. And it absolutely shouldn't be judged in our legal system, backlogged as it is. However, by outlining a few yes/no prerequisites for the applicability of a new law regarding these situations, it would be much easier to determine in what category these actions should fall:

1. Was any other person involved with the creation or production of the offending material? If it was an independent act, that would (generally) rule out coercion or force.

2. Was the subject of the photograph the sole initial distributor of the material? If yes, the subject had complete control over who, if anyone, viewed them (at least initially). Any distribution would mean that the subject consented to the photos being distributed. (Is he/she old enough to give consent? Legally, no. They're old enough to take digital photos of themselves naked and then distribute them, however, so some measure of culpability should be given.)

3. Was the subject aware of the intentions, real or implied, that distribution of these types of materials communicated to the recipient? (A.K.A. I didn't know my naked photos were going to get some nameless freaks in cyberspace hot and bothered.) Mainly for the odd circumstance in which the subject has the mental capability to create and distribute the material, but still lacks the understanding of their actions and how it affects society. A normal teenager certainly knows what general reaction they're going for when they send naked photos of themselves to people.

Of course the answer to these three factors most likely wouldn't be known at the time of the arrest, but could certainly be investigated in time for the formal charges. Rather than defend - or plea bargain - against the original child porn charges, a more applicable charge could be brought against them, with appropriate guidelines for sentancing, rehabilitation, and fines.

Amend them how?
(In regards to amending existing laws) - I don't have the knowledge of the legal system to expand upon the "amend" idea while sounding remotely like I know what I'm talking about. Consider it a line I tossed out there to see if anyone with more information than I could follow up on. You caught me ;)



I am interested in hearing anyone's responses to this idea.

[Achilles]

What is LiveJournal, and why does it have pics of nekkid kids ?

It doesn't sound like the place you want featured on your CV...

[sturmhauke]

LiveJournal is a site that hosts web logs, or blogs - sort of an online diary. Nekkid kid pics violate the terms of service, hence the need for people to find and deal with offenders.

[Kyomara]

I am appalled that no one has asked the one really important question here:

Was she hot?

[erislover]

Exactly. And I hope we can agree that 15-year-olds taking naked pictures of themselves and distributing them is something that should be discouraged... right?Dunno. Hard to see that they, who are so underdeveloped that they cannot consent to a sexual act, could understand a lesson like the one people intend to teach this girl. Seems to me these innocent babes will make the same mistake again in their youthful incompetence. That about right?

[Master Wang-Ka]

I am appalled that no one has asked the one really important question here:

Was she hot?

Um... that ain't funny. And my sense of humor is sicker than most.

I'd be in favor of amending the laws. I agree that dippy teeners prostituting themselves or manufacturing kiddie porn (or even cranking out "used panties") is frankly more than I wanna see happening.

By the same token, though, I cannot in good conscience see holding a fifteen-year-old (in general) to the same standards as a forty-year-old sleazebag. Of either gender.

Yes, there are twenty-year-olds who are remarkably dumb, and there are fourteen-year-olds who are remarkably savvy. Yes, the age-eighteen thing is purely arbitrary, a legal fiction, a convenient marking point for the Age Of Maturity, whether it functions that way or not for the individuals. But, hell, we gotta draw the line somewhere...

[Master Wang-Ka]

Dunno. Hard to see that they, who are so underdeveloped that they cannot consent to a sexual act, could understand a lesson like the one people intend to teach this girl. Seems to me these innocent babes will make the same mistake again in their youthful incompetence. That about right?

Not sure if you're being sarcastic or obtuse.

A child may or may not understand the ramifications of posting pictures of her twat on LiveJournal.

...but ANYONE not suffering from major brain damage understands that a week or a month or more locked up in a jail cell is no damn fun.

I would tend to think this would deter the repetition of the mistake in question in their youthful incompetence.

The word was "incompetence," not "idiocy."

[erislover]

Not sure if you're being sarcastic or obtuse.Just trying to wrap my head around the idea, Master Wang-Ka. I mean, if she was punished for lying on the stand, wanton destruction, killing puppies, or something of that ilk I'd see it a lot more clearly.

[Mauvaise]

A child may or may not understand the ramifications of posting pictures of her twat on LiveJournal.

What ramifications do you want her to understand? That's what I don't understand from this thread. That and how:

...a week or a month or more locked up in a jail cell ....

Is going to teach her anything useful about this whole situation.

I would tend to think this would deter the repetition of the mistake in question in their youthful incompetence.

That may be so, but I don't think it's going to teach her why she shouldn't repeat her "mistake".

What's next? Charging teens that have sex with each other of child abuse and sending them to jail too? And how far are we (society) going to go? What's the statute of limitations on child abuse? Can we start prosecuting 18 year olds for the sex they had two years ago? I mean we need to teach them a lesson, right?

[Otto]

(Not to mention those who, for whatever reason, do not have the option of the plea bargain available to them.) Who would not have the plea bargain option open to them? As I understand the CJ system, most cases are pled out. There is some concern, in fact, that (at least on the federal level) indictments are being larded with charges to force harsher pleas and bump up the punishment under federal sentencing guidelines.

[elfbabe]

What's next? Charging teens that have sex with each other of child abuse and sending them to jail too?

We already do. There was a case with a couple of 14-year-olds in Wisconsin where they were charged with raping each other.


Anyway, to move on to relevant things, there are consequences to distributing naked pictures that I think it's reasonable to try to protect minors from. Pictures like this can get passed around, put up on porn sites, and often never really go away, even years later. (Remember those Dr. Laura pictures?) They could play havoc with a relationship or any career in the public eye. (Ok, not porn star, but other careers in the public eye.) For ANYONE, public distribution of naked pictures is something that can have certain negative consequences and should be considered very carefully. I think some people are not old enough or mature enough to make that decision for themselves, so we might as well set a minimum age of 18 for it.

[Master Wang-Ka]

What ramifications do you want her to understand?

I don't think it's going to teach her why she shouldn't repeat her "mistake".

What's next? Charging teens that have sex with each other of child abuse and sending them to jail too? And how far are we (society) going to go? What's the statute of limitations on child abuse? Can we start prosecuting 18 year olds for the sex they had two years ago? I mean we need to teach them a lesson, right?

1. If she was my kid, I would make a point of EXPLAINING the ramifications. In detail, and some depth. Fifteen is plenty old enough, I think.

2. The criminal justice system is not into education. Hell, it's not even all that great at rehabilitation. Its sole value lies in getting offenders away from the rest of us, and hopefully providing some deterrent effect towards future offenses. Jailing her isn't going to teach her much, aside from "don't do it again." It ain't the criminal justice system's job to teach anyone anything. This particular realm, in fact, is supposed to be PARENTAL territory. One would hope her parents would take some part in this event, for the girl's sake.

3. Charging teens with raping each other is old news. Already happening. Not sure I like the sideways method of prosecution, though -- if you're going to use the law against these kids, there should be laws specifically targeting this specific event, and the age group in question. Using statutory rape laws and child abuse laws intended to nail adults in order to prosecute minors playing grabass on the couch, I think, is excessive.

4. Statute of limitations. Hm. Excellent point. CAN we bust eighteeners for sex had when they were minors? Damn, at this rate, we could have durn near the whole population in jail, soon. Republican World!

[Blalron]

Anyone who thinks this girl should be punished as an adult must be using some sort of bizarre "Alice In Wonderland" type logic that I'm not in on. The logic says:

(1) anyone under 18 is completely and utterly incapable of any meaningful consent to having pictures of themselves in sexual poses taken.

(2) However, if a minor happens to decide on their own free will to take pictures of herself, we must her as an adult. Just because she's a minor she shouldn't get off the hook for victimizing herself!

[Hamlet]

Just checking back into the thread to see if there are more of those pesky little things called facts. Do we know if she's actually been charged as an adult? Do we know if she's being held? Do we know how she is going to be punished? Do we know her mental state in putting the pictures up? Do we know if she did it on her own, or was put up to it by drooling idiots? Do we know anything? Anything?

[Mauvaise]

1. If she was my kid, I would make a point of EXPLAINING the ramifications. In detail, and some depth. Fifteen is plenty old enough, I think.

I'm not being bitch, truly, but what I get from that is:

15 is old enough to understand the ramifactions of one's actions, but not to actually be old enough to perform such actions?

That seems like faulty logic to me. I would think that if they can understand the consequences of their actions, then they should be allowed to make their own life choices. And yes, I realise that the issue at hand (child porn) is illegal. But what I'm saying is that a 15 year old taking pictures of herself should not be considered child porn the same (and have the same legal consequences) as an adult taking pictures of a naked 10 year old.

2. The criminal justice system is not into education. Hell, it's not even all that great at rehabilitation. Its sole value lies in getting offenders away from the rest of us, and hopefully providing some deterrent effect towards future offenses. Jailing her isn't going to teach her much, aside from "don't do it again." It ain't the criminal justice system's job to teach anyone anything. This particular realm, in fact, is supposed to be PARENTAL territory. One would hope her parents would take some part in this event, for the girl's sake.

Ok, you're right - the justice system is not into education. However, I don't feel that treating and punishing her actions as though they were the same as non-consentual child porn is the right way to go. I agree with you that it's a matter that should be left to parental control and not judicial, my question is what are "They" hoping to gain/prove/teach by doing what they are doing?


3. Charging teens with raping each other is old news. Already happening. Not sure I like the sideways method of prosecution, though -- if you're going to use the law against these kids, there should be laws specifically targeting this specific event, and the age group in question. Using statutory rape laws and child abuse laws intended to nail adults in order to prosecute minors playing grabass on the couch, I think, is excessive.

I can't argue with any of that.

4. Statute of limitations. Hm. Excellent point. CAN we bust eighteeners for sex had when they were minors? Damn, at this rate, we could have durn near the whole population in jail, soon. Republican World!

I don't know - I was kind of using hyperbole to illustrate a point, but I guess it is a good question. Maybe I'm better at this debate thing than I give myself credit for.... Nah!

[clairobscur]

Exactly. And I hope we can agree that 15-year-olds taking naked pictures of themselves and distributing them is something that should be discouraged... right?
.



This will be an extremely rare instance : I'm going to agree with erislover on something...


You're using circular logic. Erislover asked you why you wanted her to be prosecuted. You proceeded to answer basically because it would discourage other girls her age from doing the same thing. Which is, IMO, begging the question.



I could sum it up in the following way :

Q : Why is it bad for a 15 yo to distribute naked pictures of herself?

A : Because others 15 yo could then do the same, and it's bad for a 15 yo to distribute naked pictures of herself.




Another example : Why should we prosecute people smoking weed? Because if we don't more people will smoke weed, "and it is something which should be discouraged...right?"


IOW, your answer don't explain in any way why you want her to be prosecuted.





And by the way, I'm unwilling to support the prosecution of a 15 yo who willingly (assumedly) distributed naked pictures of herself. A 15 yo is old enough to have sexual urges and some clues about what sex is about. More importantly, she doesn't harm anybody, and I can't accept the concept of punishing someone for doing something which doesn't harm anybody.

At most you could argue that she's harming herself. But since when do we send people to trial for harming themselves?

[GorillaMan]

Isn't the main point being missed here?

- Take her computer for forensic analysis

- Get full ISP records

- Find out if anyone made any encouragement for her to do what she did, knowing she was underage

- Kick the crap out of him in the courts

[John Carter of Mars]

If no other facts come to light, I'll have to say that if I were on the jury, she'd walk. This case is clearly not what the child porn laws were intended to address.

No, I don't like the idea of teens putting pornographic pictures of themselves on the internet, but this ain't the way to handle it. IMHO.

[Otto]

If no other facts come to light, I'll have to say that if I were on the jury, she'd walk. This case is clearly not what the child porn laws were intended to address.

No, I don't like the idea of teens putting pornographic pictures of themselves on the internet, but this ain't the way to handle it. IMHO. Well first, it's not the job of the jury to decide what the intent of the law is. It's the job of the jury to review the evidence presented to it in accordance with the judge's instruction.

Second, how can you say that the intent of child porn laws isn't to stop children from distributing sexually oriented pictures of themselves? Why, if stopping the distribution of such pictures is what the law is supposed to do, would there be a pass if it's the subject who's doing the distributing?

Change the scenario a bit. What if she had a 15-year-old boyfriend who, with her knowledge and participation, took the pictures? Should he be prosecuted and she not?

[Ellis Dee]

Change the scenario a bit. What if she had a 15-year-old boyfriend who, with her knowledge and participation, took the pictures? Should he be prosecuted and she not?This is along the lines of what I was thinking, as well. What if she were 16 and her boyfriend were 14, and he took the pictures. Who would be at fault then? The younger kid?

This is one of the craziest cases I've ever heard of.

[WaryEri]

If they don't prosecute her, doesn't that create a kiddy porn loophole? It's okay, or at least less bad, if the minor takes pictures of themselves? Do we need a new age to draw that line? 15 year olds can take dirty pictures of themselves and share them, what about 11 year olds? 8 year olds? Anyone old enough to hold a camera? We'd need a line, and it'd be as arbitrary as 18.

What if the 15 year old is putting these less bad pictures on a pay site? Is it still okay? What if her parents run the site, and they're using the profits to remodel the kitchen? What if some unrelated stranger runs the site, and collects less bad pictures from 'willing' 15 year olds he meets in chatrooms?

It does seem wrong to be bringing down laws meant to catch dirty old men abusing children, on the head of a 15 year old who chose to make and distribute these pictures....but she's not supposed to be legally able to make that choice. If the results of this case make it clear that her "choice" in considered somewhat valid, (and this is a serious question, if anyone has any solid legal answers) what then?

[Okaybear]

I am appalled that no one has asked the one really important question here:

Was she hot?

Hee-hee-hee, goodness that's childish and in poor taste and very funny!

Seriously, that part of this whole thing that makes my head spin, is that if you're going to charge this girl as an adult, then wouldn't the charge have to be for distributing ADULT porn, rather than kiddie porn? And if you're going to charge her as a juvenile, wouldn't that make her guilty of distributing CHILD porn? Yes, yes, I recognize the fact that legally you can charge someone who's over 18 with an adult crime when they can't even buy a pack of cigs from the drug store, let alone make and distribute their own nuddie photos. But does that seem hypocritical to anyone other than me?

[vetbridge]

Well first, it's not the job of the jury to decide what the intent of the law is. It's the job of the jury to review the evidence presented to it in accordance with the judge's instruction.

What about jury nullification? Not being a smart ass, but I have heard a little about it and wonder if this is the type of situation where it might apply.

[Jaade]

Well first, it's not the job of the jury to decide what the intent of the law is. It's the job of the jury to review the evidence presented to it in accordance with the judge's instruction.

Second, how can you say that the intent of child porn laws isn't to stop children from distributing sexually oriented pictures of themselves? Why, if stopping the distribution of such pictures is what the law is supposed to do, would there be a pass if it's the subject who's doing the distributing?

Change the scenario a bit. What if she had a 15-year-old boyfriend who, with her knowledge and participation, took the pictures? Should he be prosecuted and she not?

I think that's a good point Otto.

Taking pictures of an underage girl and posting them online is illegal. It doesn't particularly matter WHO posted the pictures, it's illegal. Many of you are suppositioning that she was coerced by someone into taking these pictures. What if she weren't? In the next breath, there are arguments that she is simply exploring her sexuality, natural given her recent admission into the oh so wonderful world of puberty.

Perhaps the laws they are choosing to charge her with at this time are not the best, but I disagree that we should jump to conclusions as to her motives at this time, at any rate.

~J

[catsix]

elfbabe said:
If she doesn't get in trouble with the law for this, what's going to discourage other 15-year-olds with the same idea from distributing pictures of themselves?

What the fuck? I'll admit, up front right now, I had those ideas when I was 16, only I didn't have the big baddy Internet to post the photos on, I had to take polaroids and give them to the 17 tyear old guy I was after at the time. Oh bad, bad, bad evil me for what I did to that poor innocent victim. Except that there never was a victim in any of it. Nobody forced me to do it, nobody harmed me by doing it, and I certainly suffered no damage because of it. It had the desired effect - got the guy's attention.

I'm also concerned that not prosecuting girls who took pictures all on their own may make it more difficult to prosecute things that the laws were meant to prevent - like young teenagers being coerced into this. How're we supposed to tell which pictures are which?

Then I guess you'd find it really, really unfortunate that the statute of limitations is probably up on Traci Lords?

Exactly. And I hope we can agree that 15-year-olds taking naked pictures of themselves and distributing them is something that should be discouraged... right?

I can't say it's the happiest thing since Disney World, but my fucking god, let their parents discourage it. It's more absurd than I can even express to be wanting the book thrown at a sexually mature teenager who passed out some nudie pics of herself of her own free will. It's almost as absurd as putting sunscreen on bats.

furt said:
I have no doubt that there are girls who would sell nudie shots of themselves.

The illegality of child porn certainly did not stop Traci Lords from concealing her age and having quite the career.

Otto said:
If the pictures were unsolicited then the recipients shouldn't be charged; if they solicited them knowing she was underage then they should be charged.

What if the recipients were teenage guys between 15 and 17 who have a rather legitimate and non-pedophilic reason to want to see a 15 year old girl naked?

elfbabe said:
For ANYONE, public distribution of naked pictures is something that can have certain negative consequences and should be considered very carefully. I think some people are not old enough or mature enough to make that decision for themselves, so we might as well set a minimum age of 18 for it.

So can sex, but it's not illegal for people under 18 to have sex with each other, and in most places, it's not illegal for two 15 year olds to have sex with each other. Nobody ever got AIDS or pregnant from looking at a photograph.

[John Carter of Mars]

Well first, it's not the job of the jury to decide what the intent of the law is. It's the job of the jury to review the evidence presented to it in accordance with the judge's instruction.

I would add that it's also the job of the jury to inject some common sense into the situation. At least that's what I would do if I were selected to serve on that jury.

Second, how can you say that the intent of child porn laws isn't to stop children from distributing sexually oriented pictures of themselves? Why, if stopping the distribution of such pictures is what the law is supposed to do, would there be a pass if it's the subject who's doing the distributing?

I don't think the punishments for child porn laws, such as registering as a sex offender are appropriate in this case. Posting pictures of a child is a very different thing from someone in their mid-teens posting pictures of herself. At least it seems very different to me. There are plenty of fifteen year-olds, and this is probably one of them, that haven't been children for quite some time.

Change the scenario a bit. What if she had a 15-year-old boyfriend who, with her knowledge and participation, took the pictures? Should he be prosecuted and she not?

I think they should both be warned, perhaps made to do some community service or something. Certainly not treated the same as professional child pornographers.

[Otto]

OK, the first thing, which has already been pointed out once, everyone needs to stop assuming that this girl is being charged as an adult. There's nothing in any of the sources posted so far indicating it.

I would add that it's also the job of the jury to inject some common sense into the situation. At least that's what I would do if I were selected to serve on that jury. No, no it's really not. It's not up to the jury to decide whether the law is right or the prosecutor charged appropriately or anything other than did the prosecutor prove each of the elements of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

I don't think the punishments for child porn laws, such as registering as a sex offender are appropriate in this case. Posting pictures of a child is a very different thing from someone in their mid-teens posting pictures of herself. At least it seems very different to me. There are plenty of fifteen year-olds, and this is probably one of them, that haven't been children for quite some time. In the eyes of the law she's a child. I haven't seen that were she convicted of these charges that she would be required to register as a sex offender. Can you site a source for the contention?

I think they should both be warned, perhaps made to do some community service or something. Certainly not treated the same as professional child pornographers. Can you show me in the statutes under which she is charged where the charges make a distinction between "professional" and non-professional child pornographers.

[John Carter of Mars]

By Otto: "Can you show me in the statutes under which she is charged where the charges make a distinction between "professional" and non-professional child pornographers."

No, the statutes probably don't distinguish. That's why, if I were on her jury and the choice was to convict her as a child pornographer or acquit, I'd vote for acquital. (That would be the old common sense thing, ya' know.)


By Otto: "In the eyes of the law she's a child. I haven't seen that were she convicted of these charges that she would be required to register as a sex offender. Can you site a source for the contention?"

Only the statement made by someone above, that convicted child pornographers must register. For the purpose of this discussion, I'm assuming she would receive all the bells and whistles that an offended legal system could bring to bear.

Otto: Do you honestly believe that this person should receive the same measure of punishment as someone that posts pictures of very young children? I don't.

Now, as work is the curse of the posting class, I must bid all a good evening. I'll check in tomorrow morning.

[Tuckerfan]

What about this scenerio? She's chatting online with a cop, whose job it is to track down pedophiles, and she feeds him a story such that the cop doesn't know that she's a 15 year old girl, but thinks that she's a pedo, and she then sends the cop pictures of herself naked? Who's to blame then? The girl or the cop?

This case is a bit silly, IMHO, since had the internet been around when I was a teen, I know that my girlfriend and I would have been emailing naughty pictures of one another back and forth. Hell, when I was just barely an adult and the girls I was dating were just under the age of consent, we'd have been sending each other pictures without thinking about it. I guess that makes myself, and a good number of the folks (who'd have done the same things) I know, criminals.

[Really Not All That Bright]

This is the most ridiculous criminal charge I've ever heard. In the top ten, at any rate.

If she had tried to kill herself, would any of you want to charge her with attempted murder? Because that's what you're doing here- applying a law clearly intended to protect children from others in such a way as to criminalize the child's own conduct.

[Zoff]

I'll pop in this thread again and ask if anyone has any more facts about this case or if people are just going to keep making stuff up then criticize the criminal justice system for allegedly doing what the poster just made up.

[Otto]

No, the statutes probably don't distinguish. That's why, if I were on her jury and the choice was to convict her as a child pornographer or acquit, I'd vote for acquital. (That would be the old common sense thing, ya' know.) See, I think the problem here is that you're assigning a single meaning to the phrase "child pornographer." There are degrees and shades of meaning. Just like there are degrees and shades of meaning to words like "killer" and "thief." Is she a "child pornographer" in the same way that someone kidnapping children in Denmark and forcing them to pose is a "child pornographer"? No, of course not, which is why juries don't convict people of being labels. They convict (or acquit) them of charges.

Otto: Do you honestly believe that this person should receive the same measure of punishment as someone that posts pictures of very young children? I don't. I haven't said a word about punishment before this. But the answer is no, I don't think she's deserving of the same punishment but she is guilty of the same crime. Juries in most criminal cases don't decide punishment and aren't supposed to be considering punishment in making their decision. Based on the information available to me right now, I don't think jail time is necessarily appropriate but probation for as long as the juvenile court system has any control over her along with a restriction on owning or using a computer while on probation is. Maybe a fine.

[Mauvaise]

I'll pop in this thread again and ask if anyone has any more facts about this case or if people are just going to keep making stuff up then criticize the criminal justice system for allegedly doing what the poster just made up.

Well, on the first page was a link to a USAToday.com report on the case that said:

She has been charged with sexual abuse of children, possession of child pornography and dissemination of child pornography.

I don't see that as the OP making up that the girl was being charged with the stuff we've been arguing about in this thread. Unless, of course, USAToday is making stuff up also?

[Zoff]

Originally posted by Mauvaise
I don't see that as the OP making up that the girl was being charged with the stuff we've been arguing about in this thread.

I’m not talking about the actual charge. It’s clear she’s been charged. What’s not clear is whether she’s been charged as an adult or child, what the underlying facts are aside from knowing she sent pictures to other users, what the prosecution intends to do, and what penalties they seek.

This blurb of a story made the papers because it’s sensational. But the story doesn’t tell us much even assuming the facts are correct. And trust me, reporters aren’t always aces at legal reporting.

Yet people are decrying the prosecutor, the penalties, all kinds of things we know nothing about.

I’m not saying the prosecutor is correct or incorrect. I’m saying that, without relevant facts, there’s no point in debating whether this is a good idea. Yet a number of people want to assume the worst and base their posts on that assumption.

[catsix]

Maybe people are decrying the prosecutor because they think that only a fucktarded idiot of a DA would ever actually file charges like the ones in this case?

[Zoff]

Originally posted by catsix
Maybe people are decrying the prosecutor because they think that only a fucktarded idiot of a DA would ever actually file charges like the ones in this case?

Hmmm. Hadn't thought of that.

What, by the way, are the facts of "this case"?

[vetbridge]

It's not up to the jury to decide whether the law is right or the prosecutor charged appropriately or anything other than did the prosecutor prove each of the elements of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

I don't know about that statement. Cite?

From http://www.greenmac.com/eagle/ISSUES/ISSUE23-9/07JuryNullification.html

In fact, if you have doubts about the fairness of a law, you have the right and obligation to find someone innocent even though they have actually broken the law! John Adams, our second president, had this to say about the juror: "It is not only his right but his duty...to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court."

And from http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/zenger/nullification.html

Judges have worried that informing jurors of their power to nullify will lead to jury anarchy, with jurors following their own sympathies. They suggest that informing of the power to nullify will increase the number of hung juries. Some judges also have pointed out that jury nullification has had both positive and negative applications--the negative applications including some notorious cases in which all-white southern juries in the 1950s and 1960s refused to convict white supremacists for killing blacks or civil rights workers despite overwhelming evidence of their guilt.

[Yumanite]

Yes, yes, I recognize the fact that legally you can charge someone who's over 18 with an adult crime when they can't even buy a pack of cigs from the drug store, let alone make and distribute their own nuddie photos. But does that seem hypocritical to anyone other than me?

Slight hijack:

I believe that it is legal to buy cigs when you turn 18, at least in the US. If you substituted 'alcohol' you'd be correct (within the US) -- the legal drinking age is 21.

That is all.

[PhiloVance]

Studebaker vs. Studabaker.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1184781,00.html


:confused:

Spelled more like this. (http://www.studebakermuseum.org/)

[John Carter of Mars]

By Otto: "See, I think the problem here is that you're assigning a single meaning to the phrase "child pornographer." There are degrees and shades of meaning. Just like there are degrees and shades of meaning to words like "killer" and "thief." Is she a "child pornographer" in the same way that someone kidnapping children in Denmark and forcing them to pose is a "child pornographer"? No, of course not, which is why juries don't convict people of being labels. They convict (or acquit) them of charges."

No, I'm not assigning a single meaning. I'm saying that the law may assign a single meaning. For example, the law may fail to recognize the difference between this situation and a child pornographer such as you described above. If that were the case, then I'd vote for acquital.

If the law does in fact recognize degrees of offence in this case, then I'd certainly listen and evaluate on that basis.

[Mockingbird]

Not to suggest anything about myself, but if this case holds, I'm probably going to be in deep shit. :D



[i]SIR! Return that gun to its holster and step away from the computer!

[/Internet Police]



:D

[wring]

In the eyes of the law she's a child. I haven't seen that were she convicted of these charges that she would be required to register as a sex offender. Can you site a source for the contention?


Dunno about the jurisdiction in question, do know that in Michigan a person who is found guilty of a sex offense (even if they aren't prosecuted as an adult) are still registered on the public web site. here (http://michiganlegislature.org/mileg.asp?page=getObject&objName=mcl-712a-18&queryid=6454840&highlight=sex%20offender%20regist*)

(15) If the juvenile is within the court's jurisdiction under section 2(a)(1) of this chapter for an offense other than a listed offense as defined in section 2(e)(i) to (ix) and (xi) to (xiii) of the sex offenders registration act, 1994 PA 295, MCL 28.722, the court shall determine if the offense is a violation of a law of this state or a local ordinance of a municipality of this state that by its nature constitutes a sexual offense against an individual who is less than 18 years of age. If so, the order of disposition is for a listed offense as defined in section 2(e)(x) of the sex offenders registration act, 1994 PA 295, MCL 28.722, and the court shall include the basis for that determination on the record and include the determination in the order of disposition.

[Otto]

I don't know about that statement. Cite? Can you find me a jurisdiction in the United States in which a lawyer is allowed to argue jury nullification? And I didn't say that jury nullification didn't happen. I said that it's not the job of the jury to decide whether a law is good or bad. That some juries do it doesn't mean that by definition it's right or good or legal or the jury's job.

[vetbridge]

Can you find me a jurisdiction in the United States in which a lawyer is allowed to argue jury nullification? And I didn't say that jury nullification didn't happen. I said that it's not the job of the jury to decide whether a law is good or bad. That some juries do it doesn't mean that by definition it's right or good or legal or the jury's job.

IANAL. I have heard some interesting talk about jury nullification, however. If I (as a juror) discuss nullification during jury deliberations what are the consequences?

[vetbridge]

Can you find me a jurisdiction in the United States in which a lawyer is allowed to argue jury nullification

No.

However, I did find information about a group trying to educate people that nullification is something that can be done.....

From: http://www.jacobgrier.com/papers/JuryNullification.htm


The issue of jury nullification has stirred new interest in the United States, not just among academics but also among citizen groups. The most notable among these is the Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA), whose purpose is “to inform all Americans about their rights, powers and responsibilities when serving as trial jurors… [and] to restore the political function of the jury as the final check and balance on the American system of government” (FIJA). The organization operates by distributing pamphlets outside courthouses and seeking publicity. Though their efforts have not produced measurable affects on the attitudes of juries as a whole, there are many specific cases where jurors report being influenced by FIJA literature when voting to acquit. Also, their campaign is unique in that it is not tied to a specific issue. Historically, the circulation of pro-nullification writings has always come about in response to the persecution of a particular group (Conrad 1998, 154-165).

[chula]

IAAL, and I’m confused. If this were a question on the bar exam, I would definitely say that she was not guilty of any crime. The general rule is that members of the class the law is designed to protect are not liable. This sounds like a case that’s going to get dropped before it reaches a jury.

[catsix]

Zoff said:
What, by the way, are the facts of "this case"?

So far as I know, she took and then posted pictures of her naked self on the Internet.

I've always been under the impression that 'The People', and specifically the victim, are represented in court by the DA or the prosecutor who attempts to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant comitted the crime that he or she is accused of having committed.

My difficulty with these charges is that the 'victim' in this case is also the defendant, so supposedly the prosecutor/DA is bringing charges on her (and the people's) behalf to exact justice for the harm done to her by attempting to put the person who harmed her through some kind of legal punishment. First off, I don't get the impression that she's the victim of a crime, or that there was any 'harm' committed against her. I also wonder just exactly how the hell this will work in court, since the victims of sex crimes usually testify as to what happened, how the crime affected them, and so on during the trial.

Who's going on the stand here? Her? Can the prosecution call her as a prosecution witness since she is supposedly the 'victim' of the 'child pornographer'? Would that even be a good idea? I somehow doubt she'd sit up there with her Kleenex sobbing about how 'the defendant' forced her to take her clothes off for the pictures and then posted them on the Internet. If they could call her as a witness because she is the 'victim' of this crime, can she invoke her Fifth Amendment rights not to answer questions as the victim because she's also the defendant and has a right not to say anything that could be used to incriminate herself? Can the defense put her on the stand to attempt to shoot down the prosecution's theory that there is a victim of a child pornographer in this case? If she got up there and said that she doesn't consider herself a victim of child pornography, does that make her a remorseless sex offender? Just how the hell would a trial like this even work? Call a bunch of people to say that she sent them pictures of herself naked who will not admit it on the stand because they'd incriminate themselves for receiving child pornography? Offer them immunity for possessing the pictures so they'll testify that she sent them, but still go ahead with the prosecution of the victim^H^H^H^H^H^H defendant because clearly it's the suppliers of 'kiddie porn' who have done the worse of the two crimes?

In my head I'm seeing a trial in which the only witnesses that actually testify give pretty damned clear testimony that yes, the pictures do exist, which as far as I know, nobody is disputing, and no testimony of any kind that would prove there is a victim much less that the defendant victimized anyone by taking and distributing the pictures. I'm obviously not a lawyer, just an engineer, but I'm the kind of person who gets randomly selected for jury duty and I can't imagine how a prosecutor could get me to wrap my mind around this case in a 'return a guilty verdict' kind of way. It just doesn't make sense.

Maybe this is why Traci Lords was never charged with a single crime, although there are anywhere from 70 to 107 different titles containing pornographic footage of her shot while she was under 18, and she was a Penthouse Pet at the age of 15. Lords actually only made one porn movie after her 18th birthday, which is the only legal pornographic footage of her ever shot. Apparently she was arrested, but never charged. Hmm, her porn films and nude photo spread were seen by and distributed to millions of people, yet nobody saw fit to ever charge her with a crime. Meanwhile this girl showed some nudie photos of herself to a few people on the Internet and all of a sudden she's a dangerous criminal?

What, was Traci Lords just lucky that she didn't make her porn in Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania?

[Zoff]

Originally posted by catsix
So far as I know, she took and then posted pictures of her naked self on the Internet. (Emphassis added)

The underlined portion is my point. So far as we know, these are the few facts known.

We don't know anything else. We don't know if what you state is the extent of her actions or not. We don't know if this is part of a larger investigation.

Regarding the victim/defendant issue, the DA prosecutes on behalf of the people. The "victim" in the legal sense is the people, not the 15 year old. For instance, if you are mugged and refuse to assist the prosecution, they can still prosecute the mugger because they are not prosecuting on your behalf.

When more facts come to light, it might turn out to be the single dumbest idea a prosecutor ever had. But we don't have enough information to come to an educated, reasonable conclusion about what's going on.

[WernhamHogg]

I wonder if she'll be tried as an adult? You gotta love the irony of that one.

[The Great Sun Jester]

I am appalled that no one has asked the one really important question here:

Was she hot?
I didn't have the stones. Thank you.

[ENugent]

IAAL, and I’m confused. If this were a question on the bar exam, I would definitely say that she was not guilty of any crime. The general rule is that members of the class the law is designed to protect are not liable. This sounds like a case that’s going to get dropped before it reaches a jury.
I was thinking the same thing. Are there any other lawyers in the house with a contrary opinion? Why?

[catsix]

Zoff said:
The "victim" in the legal sense is the people, not the 15 year old. For instance, if you are mugged and refuse to assist the prosecution, they can still prosecute the mugger because they are not prosecuting on your behalf.

If there are no witnesses and no physical evidence that a crime was committed, how would they prove a mugging took place without my testimony? If they think someone mugged me because he now has some amount of money that I now don't have, but I steadfastly tell them that I was not mugged, and I will say on the witness stand that I was not mugged, how would they actually prosecute that?

Also odd about what you said: when someone is raped, the victim is the person who was raped, when someone was murdered, the victim is the dead person, and when a child is sexually abused the victim is the child. But when a 15 year old takes naked pictures of herself, the victim is society? In what way did this harm society or 'the people' at all?

The underlined portion is my point. So far as we know, these are the few facts known.

I think that if the media managed to get any inclination at all that this girl was coerced into taking those pictures, there would have been a Dateline or 20/20 special about it already.

When more facts come to light, it might turn out to be the single dumbest idea a prosecutor ever had. But we don't have enough information to come to an educated, reasonable conclusion about what's going on.

What other information are you looking for here? Why do you think there is more information that we don't know? What is so damned implausible about this having been entirely her idea and her action?

[jayjay]

What other information are you looking for here? Why do you think there is more information that we don't know? What is so damned implausible about this having been entirely her idea and her action?

'Cause she's only 15, dammit! We all know 15-year-olds just don't DO stuff like this unless they're coerced to by a nasty, perverted older man!

Of course, this doesn't explain why I spent most of my teenage/young adult years (14-around 23) hanging out in public restrooms having anonymous sex with strangers who not only had no idea how old I was, but never even saw my face (because I didn't want them to balk at the whole "underage" thing).

Teenagers don't have sex or the urge to have sex, dammit! They're simon-pure unless some evil adult makes them otherwise!

[catsix]

Yeah, like you, I remember what I was doing when I was 15. Had the Internet been so big then, I might've been this girl.

And it wasn't for being coerced in the least. I'd lie about my age, do whatever I could to fake it so that I seemed older.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if this is the whole story.

[Evil Captor]

Yet people are decrying the prosecutor, the penalties, all kinds of things we know nothing about. I’m not saying the prosecutor is correct or incorrect. I’m saying that, without relevant facts, there’s no point in debating whether this is a good idea.

I've read this post or others very much like it about a thousand times on the SDMB, and it's stupid.

You got a better set of facts than what we have, post them.

Otherwise we deal with what's on the table. This business of constantly decrying arguments on the basis of some mythical set of better facts or better undrestanding ... virtual pie in the sky ... is silly. It may well be true that a more complete news story will come along tomorrow or the next day which will resolve the issues dealt with here. BFD. It may not. We deal with the facts we have.

Is that so hard to understand?

[Evil Captor]

IAAL, and I’m confused. If this were a question on the bar exam, I would definitely say that she was not guilty of any crime. The general rule is that members of the class the law is designed to protect are not liable. This sounds like a case that’s going to get dropped before it reaches a jury.

If this is so, how can two teens having (I would assume) consensual sex be convicted of raping one another because they are both underage, as has been claimed earlier in this thread?

[Mr2001]

Well, I certainly hope she's acquitted. I don't see people sharing pictures of themselves as a problem that the law needs to discourage, whether or not those people have reached some arbitrary age.

Unless the girl was coerced into taking those pictures, there is no victim. This is just more knee-jerk Puritanism from the same brand of idiots who brought us all that hoopla over two seconds of halftime nipple.

[Blalron]

So far as I know, she took and then posted pictures of her naked self on the Internet.

I've always been under the impression that 'The People', and specifically the victim, are represented in court by the DA or the prosecutor who attempts to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant comitted the crime that he or she is accused of having committed.

My difficulty with these charges is that the 'victim' in this case is also the defendant, so supposedly the prosecutor/DA is bringing charges on her (and the people's) behalf to exact justice for the harm done to her by attempting to put the person who harmed her through some kind of legal punishment. First off, I don't get the impression that she's the victim of a crime, or that there was any 'harm' committed against her. I also wonder just exactly how the hell this will work in court, since the victims of sex crimes usually testify as to what happened, how the crime affected them, and so on during the trial.

You could make the same argument about drug prosecutions also. Who is the "victim" in that case? The State is punishing you for harming yourself. Yes, you and I think it's silly, but the governing majority seems to accept this as a valid exercise of government power.

[catsix]

And showing me another case in which I firmly believe the 'governing majority' is a bunch of fuckwits is supposed to prove what, exactly?

That there are lots of bad laws on the books?

[chula]

If this is so, how can two teens having (I would assume) consensual sex be convicted of raping one another because they are both underage, as has been claimed earlier in this thread?I didn't mean to imply that no minor can be convicted of a crime against a minor. Maybe I shouldn't have said "class of persons." The better analogy in the statutory rape case would be to charge the girl with being an accomplice to her own rape.

[Zoff]

Originally posted by catsix
If there are no witnesses and no physical evidence that a crime was committed, how would they prove a mugging took place without my testimony? If they think someone mugged me because he now has some amount of money that I now don't have, but I steadfastly tell them that I was not mugged, and I will say on the witness stand that I was not mugged, how would they actually prosecute that?

The fact that it might be difficult to prosecute does not mean they could not prosecute it if they felt they had sufficient evidence. My point was that merely saying the girl was the victim and wouldn’t testify doesn’t mean they can’t prosecute.

Also odd about what you said: when someone is raped, the victim is the person who was raped, when someone was murdered, the victim is the dead person, and when a child is sexually abused the victim is the child. But when a 15 year old takes naked pictures of herself, the victim is society?

The victim is the one who was raped or murdered, but the prosecution is on behalf of the people.

In what way did this harm society or 'the people' at all?

Perhaps when we have more than a thumbnail sketch of the facts we’ll know. That’s my point.

I think that if the media managed to get any inclination at all that this girl was coerced into taking those pictures, there would have been a Dateline or 20/20 special about it already.

That’s just more speculation.

What other information are you looking for here? Why do you think there is more information that we don't know? What is so damned implausible about this having been entirely her idea and her action?

When did I ever say it’s implausible that it was her idea? And there’s a lot more information we don’t know because what we do know is so very little. An eight line story is hardly exhaustive.

Originally posted by jayjay
'Cause she's only 15, dammit! We all know 15-year-olds just don't DO stuff like this unless they're coerced to by a nasty, perverted older man!

Not sure if this is meant for me. I’m not a prude who denies a 15 year olds sexuality. If she did this on her own, for kicks I don’t think that prosecuting her is the most effective means of discouraging this.

But to take a news blurb and then say she did it on her own because 15 year olds sometimes do that sort of thing isn’t a much better approach.

Originally posted by Evil Captor
You got a better set of facts than what we have, post them.

Otherwise we deal with what's on the table.

Yes, indeed. It’s always better to jump to conclusions based on limited information.

If you want to do that, have at it. I prefer to have some relevant facts before making conclusions. The media, in my experience, is simply awful in reporting legal news. It’s a lot of fun to get whipped up into righteous indignation. I simply prefer to wait a little bit until I have sufficient information. I guess we have different approaches.

Originally posted by ENugent
I was thinking the same thing. Are there any other lawyers in the house with a contrary opinion? Why?

Before I even start this part of the post let me say this: I’m talking about the government’s justifications for making certain things illegal. I’m not necessarily endorsing it or condemning it so there’s no point in any more “Oh yeah, of course all underage kids who fuck are such innocent victims. I fucked when I was fourteen you prude.”

The reasons given for banning child porn are a little different from something like statutory rape. Statutory rape is illegal because it harms the underage participant. That’s about it.

Child porn is illegal because it harms the child used to produce the porn but also because it creates an economic motive for its production and the state has a compelling interest in eliminating the production and distribution entirely.

So the statutory rape victim is considered the only one harmed while child porn is considered to create a larger problem and, thus, more potential victims.

I don’t do criminal law, nor do I know much of anything about child porn law, but there seems to be a distinction there. I don’t know if that’s the approach being used by the prosecutor, though.

[catsix]

Zoff said:
Perhaps when we have more than a thumbnail sketch of the facts we’ll know. That’s my point.

...

That’s just more speculation.

What is it when you keep telling me that there's more evidence out there that I just don't know about (and that you don't know for certain exists)?

Isn't that 'speculation'?

And there’s a lot more information we don’t know because what we do know is so very little. An eight line story is hardly exhaustive.

How do you know there is more information? Because the story's short? Maybe the story's short because the facts are actually that simple. Why are you speculating that there's some grand cache of facts hiding back there?

It’s always better to jump to conclusions based on limited information.

Well, you did jump to the conclusion that there has to be some kind of major underlying mountain of facts simply because the story was short.

Child porn is illegal because it harms the child used to produce the porn but also because it creates an economic motive for its production and the state has a compelling interest in eliminating the production and distribution entirely.

Why was Traci Lords never charged with a single crime despite having made between 70 and 107 porn films and doing two magazine spreads all before her 18th birthday? If child porn is such a problem, and the economic incentive of creating it the reason it's bad for a 15 year old to make porn of herself, this 15 year old in Latrobe, PA has nothing on Traci.

(BTW, Lords started her porn career at 15 and ended it two days after she turned 18.)

[Zoff]

Originally posted by catsix
How do you know there is more information? Because the story's short? Maybe the story's short because the facts are actually that simple. Why are you speculating that there's some grand cache of facts hiding back there?

I’m just cautioning against making conclusions without relevant facts. I’ve never said there is some cache of earth-shattering facts. But we’ve already had people saying that it’s more likely a case of an adult exploiting a child and others seemingly implying it’s a prosecutor punishing sexuality. That’s certainly not in evidence here.

It’s been my experience that quick blurb news stories can be very misleading. Especially when dealing with legal issues. How did the reporter get the information? Did the reporter see the charging documents or hear it from a source? Does the reporter/source understand legal documents enough to get the gist of what’s happening?

Why was Traci Lords never charged with a single crime despite having made between 70 and 107 porn films and doing two magazine spreads all before her 18th birthday? If child porn is such a problem, and the economic incentive of creating it the reason it's bad for a 15 year old to make porn of herself, this 15 year old in Latrobe, PA has nothing on Traci.

Did you read my disclaimer? I’m not going to debate about the economic implications. I was repeating the Supreme Court’s explanation for why child porn is illegal.

I have no idea why Traci Lords wasn’t prosecuted. I don’t know enough about the facts.

[coffeecam]

RE: jury nulification

I know that at least one case in Wisconsin had nullification argued to the jury as the only just course of action, and that jury did decide to nullify, despite the obvious guilt of the accused.

The jury in that case was asked to make a statement about the reasonableness of the procecutors decision to bring the suit in the first place (do they as citizens feel that his/her decision to prosecute is in their best interest.) The judge allowed this line of argument as the closing of the case.

(we saw it in evidence as an example of the prosecutors function.)

[catsix]

Quite frankly Zoff, the reporter doesn't have to understand anything about it to write down a list of facts in sentence form.

It's a lot better, IMO, when they don't, because then they don't editorialize and spin everything. The longer the article, the more of the reporter's opinion we're going to see.

If you have some kind of other facts, post them. Otherwise, you're contributing nothing whatsoever to the discussion.

Right now you're doing nothing constructive by continuing to say that you think (but don't know) that there are more facts that somehow change this story. If you've got such a hardon for only posting about the facts, then quit your speculations.

[elfbabe]

Oh right, there was this thread I was posting in...

Anyway, I'm just going to try to clear up my own position briefly here.

You're using circular logic.

Actually, I think you missed the part where I explained why I thought it was bad for a 15-year-old to distribute naked pictures of herself. Anyway, it's because pictures like this can affect the person photographed for a long time after they're taken if they someday come to light again. Remember those pictures of Dr. Laura? Someone who takes naked pictures at 14 or 15 may, 10 years later, want to have a career or lead a life that would be quite damaged by the existence of said nakeypictures. Of course, an 18-year-old might end up in the same situation, but I don't think it's unreasonable to set SOME arbitrary minimum age on nakeypicture distribution, 18 or 16 or 15 or whatever, below which we presume that the individual is unable to fully understand the consequences of those actions.

There are, of course, the same problems with having sex at a young age before you really understand the possibility of diseases and babies and whatnot, and I actually feel the same way about age of consent things as I do about naked pictures, but that would take a while to explain.

Then I guess you'd find it really, really unfortunate that the statute of limitations is probably up on Traci Lords?

Then I guess that you feel that Traci Lords did absolutely nothing wrong?

In my view, pretty much everyone involved in the Traci Lords... problem... was somehow culpable, including Lords herself. Still, I am NOT interested in tracking down former underage porn stars in order to punish them somehow, just as I'm not interested in tracking down underage girls who show their boobies in order to clap them in irons. The point of any legal punishment for this ought to be more educative than anything else, IMO - a little bit of "When we said not to do that, WE REALLY MEANT IT," and a lot of "This is why you really shouldn't do that."

[catsix]

Then I guess that you feel that Traci Lords did absolutely nothing wrong?

Actually, I don't.

She wanted to be in porno. She went to great lengths to conceal her age so that she could be. She wasn't coerced.

Apparently she now claims it was a mistake, but hell, lots of adults do things they later claim were mistakes.

So no, I don't think she did anything 'wrong' in the sense of a crime that anyone should have had to pay for.

[BlackKnight]

The Man with the Golden Gun and BlackKnight, while only trying to make a funny (probably), are hitting pretty close to the truth of the matter.

I was trying to be funny, but I was also serious.

When I was 16, I emailed explicit naked pictures of myself to a 35 year old woman I had met online. I had cybersex and phone-sex with her numerous times between the ages of 16 and 19. (I never had any face-to-face encounter with her, since she lived very far away.)

It's possible (although unlikely) that I still have one or more of those pics on an old harddrive or floppy disk somewhere. What would happen if someone found a picture of a naked 16 year old me on one of my floppy disks? Could I be charged with posessing child pornography of my earlier self?

If, by some chance, she still has one of my earlier pictures, I don't think there is any reason whatsoever to charge her with anything. If, by some chance, she were to be prosecuted for posessing such pictures I would gladly testify on her behalf.

[Zoff]

Originally posted by catsix
If you have some kind of other facts, post them. Otherwise, you're contributing nothing whatsoever to the discussion.

You're right. I don't want to get in the way of righteous indignation based on a couple of sentences in a newspaper.

[elfbabe]

Actually, I don't.

She wanted to be in porno. She went to great lengths to conceal her age so that she could be. She wasn't coerced.

Ok, since she wasn't coerced or exploited, do you think that the various agents, producers, distributers, and whatnot involved with the issue got what they deserved? Was it right that they were prosecuted when it was discovered that she'd been underage, even though she told them she wasn't?

[Una Persson]

Why was Traci Lords never charged with a single crime despite having made between 70 and 107 porn films and doing two magazine spreads all before her 18th birthday?
(Aside) Really, why wasn't she? Has this been addressed somewhere?

[elfbabe]

(Aside) Really, why wasn't she? Has this been addressed somewhere?

Well, in this interview with Ron Jeremy (http://www.nyrock.com/interviews/2003/jeremy_int.asp), he says that "Traci Lords turned in her friends so they didn't go after her." I don't know if that's true or not, but I can't find a better source at the moment.

[Evil Captor]

Ok, since she wasn't coerced or exploited, do you think that the various agents, producers, distributers, and whatnot involved with the issue got what they deserved? Was it right that they were prosecuted when it was discovered that she'd been underage, even though she told them she wasn't?

IIRC, only one producer, Ginger Lynn Allen, was ever prosecuted, and she was acquitted very handily. Fact was, everybody including her had a defense, i.e., Traci Lords had fake documents, apparently pretty good ones, to establish her age. IIRC Lynn said she was only prosecuted because they were pressuring her to roll on other members of the industry, and she wouldn't roll.

So only one person got prosecuted, nobody got convicted.

[catsix]

elfbabe said:
Ok, since she wasn't coerced or exploited, do you think that the various agents, producers, distributers, and whatnot involved with the issue got what they deserved? Was it right that they were prosecuted when it was discovered that she'd been underage, even though she told them she wasn't?

I don't think it was. It's not like they were out deliberately victimizing someone they knew to be a child.

At least in the end, nobody went to prison over Lords's decision and deception.

[elfbabe]

I don't think it was. It's not like they were out deliberately victimizing someone they knew to be a child.

Ok. Then should commercial pornography featuring under-18 but consenting performers be ok?

(I actually think that the age of consent for all sexual matters - sex, pictures, and whatnot - should be the same, and it should probably be under 18. Still in favor of a minimum age below which you can't Do That, but 18's just unreasonable.)

[catsix]

I think it should be lower, I'm just not sure how much.

Any arbitrary number is probably going to be wrong for some people.

[elfbabe]

I think it should be lower, I'm just not sure how much.

I'm not sure either.

Any arbitrary number is probably going to be wrong for some people.

Yeah. I think our current arbitrary number's probably more wrong than some lower arbitrary numbers might be, though.

[erislover]

Anyway, it's because pictures like this can affect the person photographed for a long time after they're taken if they someday come to light again. Remember those pictures of Dr. Laura? Someone who takes naked pictures at 14 or 15 may, 10 years later, want to have a career or lead a life that would be quite damaged by the existence of said nakeypictures.And how would their career be damaged if we gave up the pretense that such pictures are inherently bad?
The point of any legal punishment for this ought to be more educative than anything else, IMO - a little bit of "When we said not to do that, WE REALLY MEANT IT," and a lot of "This is why you really shouldn't do that."But the "this" in "This is why..." is that she's fifteen. Again, what lesson do you want her to learn? You're so concerned about her future being compromised by distributing nekkid pics, but not from being prosecuted, perhaps missing out on a better high school education, etc?

[Evil Captor]

[QUOTE=erislover]AnAgain, what lesson do you want her to learn?[\QUOTE]

The lesson is "Do what we say or we'll do horrible bad things to you." Some people never tire of teaching it.

[elfbabe]

There's also the issue of unwanted attention coming because of the pictures. I've actually had people significantly older than I am get in contact with me and try to chat me up simply because they thought some NON-naked pictures of me they'd managed to find were sexy and meant that I wanted attention from a nice older man.

[Qadgop the Mercotan]

There's also the issue of unwanted attention coming because of the pictures. I've actually had people significantly older than I am get in contact with me and try to chat me up simply because they thought some NON-naked pictures of me they'd managed to find were sexy and meant that I wanted attention from a nice older man.
Which older people? Where? I will send out the intimidation squad.

(one good thing about working in a prison; you meet people with very interesting occupations. "Intimidator" was one occupation given to me by a patient. He's back out on the streets now)

[elfbabe]

Which older people? Where? I will send out the intimidation squad.

Worry not. This was a couple years ago, and I think they got the point when I told them to "leave me the hell alone" or something like that.

[jayjay]

Which older people? Where? I will send out the intimidation squad.

(one good thing about working in a prison; you meet people with very interesting occupations. "Intimidator" was one occupation given to me by a patient. He's back out on the streets now)

Ah, the hazards of posting on the same message board as your dad... :D

Seriously, with some of the things I post on here, I'd absolutely die if my mom ever figured out how to turn on a computer and surf the net...

[Qadgop the Mercotan]

Ah, the hazards of posting on the same message board as your dad... :D

Seriously, with some of the things I post on here, I'd absolutely die if my mom ever figured out how to turn on a computer and surf the net...
Since Elfbabe was reading the SDMB long before she signed up, I tended to not write anything here I wouldn't mind my kids knowing. And once she signed up, we agreed on a mutual non-embarrassment pact.