# 16 YO girl changed with child porn for taking naked pics of another 16 YO girl. **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [April 1, 2006, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/16-yo-girl-changed-with-child-porn-for-taking-naked-pics-of-another-16-yo-girl/350817 "2006-04-01T05:21:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2006, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/16-yo-girl-changed-with-child-porn-for-taking-naked-pics-of-another-16-yo-girl/350817/1 "2006-04-01T05:21:34Z")
[Third teenage girl charged in child pornography case](http://ww2.wpri.com/Global/story.asp?S=4698594) Charge her with being lewd or lascivious behavior or whatever… but _child porn_? At some point aren’t prosecutors required to use common sense? > [@](#): > > NORTH SMITHFIELD, R.I. (AP) – A teenage girl has been charged with conspiracy in a child pornography case involving two other teenagers. > > The 16-year-old from Lincoln was arrested and charged with conspiracy. She’s accused of taking explicit photos of two friends, 19-year-old Elizabeth Muller of North Smithfield and a 16-year-old girl from Lincoln whose name hasn’t been released. > > The photos were later posted on their MySpace Web sites. The name of the third girl, who was charged Wednesday, also has not been released. The other two teens were arrested earlier this week and charged with child pornography > [@](#): > > Two Teens Charged with Child Pornography > A police officer monitoring [myspace.com](http://myspace.com) discovered pornographic pictures of Elizabeth Muller,19, and an unidentified 16-year-old girl according to a spokesperson for the attorney general’s office. Also the girls are said to be together in the photos. > The 16-year-old has been charged with child pornography and curfew violation and went before a Family Court judge on the 27th of March. Muller has also been charged with child pornography in District Court. > Muller is a student of Lincoln High School in Providence, Rhode Island. There is no word on whether or not they will have to register as sex offenders ---
**Author:** ![Diceman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Diceman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diceman)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2006, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/16-yo-girl-changed-with-child-porn-for-taking-naked-pics-of-another-16-yo-girl/350817/2 "2006-04-01T05:27:21Z")
Unfortunately, it seems like common sense is strictly optional these days. ---
**Author:** ![Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e480ec/32.png) [@Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Least_Original_User_Name_Ever)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2006, 5:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/16-yo-girl-changed-with-child-porn-for-taking-naked-pics-of-another-16-yo-girl/350817/3 "2006-04-01T05:38:23Z")
I think I agree. I mean, if the girl were 18, then I could see it. Blah. ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2006, 8:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/16-yo-girl-changed-with-child-porn-for-taking-naked-pics-of-another-16-yo-girl/350817/4 "2006-04-01T08:35:05Z")
I don’t think we should be hasty in our judgements here. First we should see the evidence and decide whether it is really pornographic. Just to be fair to all concerned… ---
**Author:** ![RandMcnally](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b782af/32.png) [@RandMcnally](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RandMcnally)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2006, 9:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/16-yo-girl-changed-with-child-porn-for-taking-naked-pics-of-another-16-yo-girl/350817/5 "2006-04-01T09:39:03Z")
> [@Malacandra](#): > > First we should see the evidence and decide whether it is really pornographic. Just to be fair to all concerned… Even I don’t have the balls to say that. Kudoos to you good sir! ---
**Author:** ![Stark\_Raven\_Mad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Stark\_Raven\_Mad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stark_Raven_Mad)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2006, 9:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/16-yo-girl-changed-with-child-porn-for-taking-naked-pics-of-another-16-yo-girl/350817/6 "2006-04-01T09:40:47Z")
God bless America. ---
**Author:** ![Omniscient](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omniscient/32/3290_2.png) [@Omniscient](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omniscient)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2006, 10:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/16-yo-girl-changed-with-child-porn-for-taking-naked-pics-of-another-16-yo-girl/350817/7 "2006-04-01T10:45:55Z")
> [@Malacandra](#): > > I don’t think we should be hasty in our judgements here. > > First we should see the evidence and decide whether it is really pornographic. Just to be fair to all concerned… I love this place… ---
**Author:** ![DirkGntly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/d9b06d/32.png) [@DirkGntly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DirkGntly)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2006, 1:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/16-yo-girl-changed-with-child-porn-for-taking-naked-pics-of-another-16-yo-girl/350817/8 "2006-04-01T13:02:13Z")
> [@](#): > > A police officer monitoring [myspace.com](http://myspace.com) discovered pornographic pictures… Kinda like shooting fish in a barrel, isn’t it? Oh, and just for argument’s sake…sounds to me like a cop with a child/teen porn fetish has it easy…he can’t be arrested for it. “Oh, I was just MONITORING that website…you know…going after the perps and all that…” ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2006, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/16-yo-girl-changed-with-child-porn-for-taking-naked-pics-of-another-16-yo-girl/350817/9 "2006-04-01T14:21:29Z")
If he was monitoring the site, my guess is that it was part of his job. In other words, that he was assigned to do that. Perhaps he doesn’t have any fetish at all. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2006, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/16-yo-girl-changed-with-child-porn-for-taking-naked-pics-of-another-16-yo-girl/350817/10 "2006-04-01T16:01:18Z")
> [@astro](#): > > [Third teenage girl charged in child pornography case](http://ww2.wpri.com/Global/story.asp?S=4698594) > > Charge her with being lewd or lascivious behavior or whatever… but _child porn_? > > At some point aren’t prosecutors required to use common sense? You know what’s really fucked up about this? The age of consent in Rhode Island is sixteen. Also, as far as i can tell, the state (thankfully) has no laws against homosexual sex. So, it would have been legal for these three girls to indulge in a three-way carpet-munching dildo-fest, but it’s illegal for them to take nude pictures of one another. ---
**Author:** ![Electronic\_Chaos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Electronic\_Chaos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Electronic_Chaos)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2006, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/16-yo-girl-changed-with-child-porn-for-taking-naked-pics-of-another-16-yo-girl/350817/11 "2006-04-01T16:27:38Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > You know what’s really fucked up about this? The age of consent in Rhode Island is sixteen. Also, as far as i can tell, the state (thankfully) has no laws against homosexual sex. > > So, it would have been legal for these three girls to indulge in a three-way carpet-munching dildo-fest, but it’s illegal for them to take nude pictures of one another. I’ll see you guys in a few weeks. I’m off to Rhode Island! 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2006, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/16-yo-girl-changed-with-child-porn-for-taking-naked-pics-of-another-16-yo-girl/350817/12 "2006-04-01T18:01:13Z")
> [@DirkGntly](#): > > I was just MONITORING that website Interesting. I’m going to be monitoring some websites later tonight. \ ---
**Author:** ![Lissa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lissa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lissa)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2006, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/16-yo-girl-changed-with-child-porn-for-taking-naked-pics-of-another-16-yo-girl/350817/13 "2006-04-01T18:18:05Z")
> [@DirkGntly](#): > > Kinda like shooting fish in a barrel, isn’t it? > Oh, and just for argument’s sake…sounds to me like a cop with a child/teen porn fetish has it easy…he can’t be arrested for it. “Oh, I was just MONITORING that website…you know…going after the perps and all that…” I know investigators and cops who have to do this. (My hubby works in a prison, and they often have to investigate images which are sent in to the inmates.) All joking aside, these guys are often somewhat traumatized by seeing them. I’ve seen tears in their eyes when they talk about what they’ve seen. It takes a very strong person to remain professional in these circumstances. That said, I think this particular case from the OP is ridiculous. ---
**Author:** ![chaoticbear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f07891/32.png) [@chaoticbear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chaoticbear)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2006, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/16-yo-girl-changed-with-child-porn-for-taking-naked-pics-of-another-16-yo-girl/350817/14 "2006-04-01T18:59:27Z")
[QUOTE=mhendo Also, as far as i can tell, the state (thankfully) has no laws against homosexual sex. [/QUOTE] No state does.The anti-sodomy laws were all nullified by Lawrence v. Texas in 2001. ---
**Author:** ![scott62](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ea5d25/32.png) [@scott62](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scott62)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2006, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/16-yo-girl-changed-with-child-porn-for-taking-naked-pics-of-another-16-yo-girl/350817/15 "2006-04-01T19:06:39Z")
Why don’t I know any 16 -19 year olds like this? ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2006, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/16-yo-girl-changed-with-child-porn-for-taking-naked-pics-of-another-16-yo-girl/350817/16 "2006-04-01T19:06:40Z")
> [@chaoticbear](#): > > No state does.The anti-sodomy laws were all nullified by Lawrence v. Texas in 2001. 1. ---
**Author:** ![chaoticbear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f07891/32.png) [@chaoticbear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chaoticbear)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2006, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/16-yo-girl-changed-with-child-porn-for-taking-naked-pics-of-another-16-yo-girl/350817/17 "2006-04-01T19:11:53Z")
**Gaudere** , I’m going to hit you. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2006, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/16-yo-girl-changed-with-child-porn-for-taking-naked-pics-of-another-16-yo-girl/350817/18 "2006-04-01T19:16:42Z")
> [@chaoticbear](#): > > No state does.The anti-sodomy laws were all nullified by Lawrence v. Texas in 2001. Right. What i should have said was that R.I. doesn’t have any separate age of consent for homosexual sex. Actually, i’d be interested in knowing whether _Lawrence v. Texas_ also nullified such age of consent laws. That is, would it be acceptable for a a state to set a different age of consent for gay sex than for stright sex (e.g., 18 for homosexual sex; 16 for heterosexual sex)? ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2006, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/16-yo-girl-changed-with-child-porn-for-taking-naked-pics-of-another-16-yo-girl/350817/19 "2006-04-01T19:53:54Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > What i should have said was that R.I. doesn’t have any separate age of consent for homosexual sex. > > Actually, i’d be interested in knowing whether _Lawrence v. Texas_ also nullified such age of consent laws. That is, would it be acceptable for a a state to set a different age of consent for gay sex than for stright sex (e.g., 18 for homosexual sex; 16 for heterosexual sex)? Yes it did, and no the state can’t. Shortly after SCOTUS ruled in Lawrence, it ruled on [Limon v Kansas](http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/discrim/12143res20050308.html). Matthew Limon was imprisoned at age 18 for having consensual oral sex with a 14 year old boy. If the 14 year old had been a girl, Limon’s maximum sentence could have been 15 months under the state’s so-called “Romeo and Juliet” law, which allows for lesser penalties if the offender is close in age to the “victim.” Because Limon and the boy were of the same sex, Limon was sentenced to 17 years in prison. SCOTUS sent the case back to the Kansas courts with an instruction to re-rule consistent with the Court’s finding in Lawrence. A unanimous Kansas supreme court vacated his conviction and sentence (after he’d spent over 5 years in prison) and struck down the part of the state’s R&J law that allowed for unequal treatment of same-sex offenders as unconstitutional. ---
**Author:** ![alphaboi867](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alphaboi867/32/3898_2.png) [@alphaboi867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alphaboi867)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2006, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/16-yo-girl-changed-with-child-porn-for-taking-naked-pics-of-another-16-yo-girl/350817/20 "2006-04-01T20:33:32Z")
What’s really absurd about the law is if she had taken pictures of herseld she could still be charged with making child porn and if convicted have to register as a sex offender. If both parties are minors things should be handled differently that an adult and a minor. If they’re close in age (not a 16 and a 6 yr old) then they should just get counseling or a fine. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/16-yo-girl-changed-with-child-porn-for-taking-naked-pics-of-another-16-yo-girl/350817.md?page=2)