OK, USA Today isn’t one of my primary news sources, but the Associated Press is. This is an AP wire story, meaning the AP wrote it and other news sources picked it up and published it. I’ll assume it’s generally fairly accurate because we all know the perversity of the Universe tends towards a maximum.
So, what is the legal theory here? How can someone be the victim of child pornography when they are the one who took the pictures and created said pornography of themselves? I understand victimless crimes, but crimes where the perpetrator is also the purported victim? Ladies and gentlemen of the supposed Dope, this does not make sense! Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit!
More broadly, it is illegal to have sex with a child, something generally taken to include masturbation and other non-reproductive sex acts. So, who here didn’t masturbate until the age of consent? Be honest. Who here would be guilty of statutory rape, a strict liability offense, under the same general theory the prosecution is using in the case the news story I linked to talks about? If you say no, you either don’t know how high the age of consent is (14 is a common lower bound) or your memory is absolute shit.
Who here thinks that girl’s life should be ruined because she took pictures of herself?
If you accept that increasing the sum total of child pornography available is bad, then the last charge makes at least some vague sense. The second one also, if you work on the assumption that what she has is likely to escape and be seen by others. The first charge is just sheer insanity. But then, sheer insanity is a key characteristic of moral panics, which is what the US and its cultural siblings is undergoing in relation to matters pertaining to sex and children at the moment.
I have a similar story; a friend of mine distributed candy bars with a wrapper featuring himself when he was eight sporting a rather impressive eight year old erection to promote his punk band.
He never got turned in (no-one in the East Village punk community bothered to…color me surprised.) But I always wondered.
I’d say you can’t be called on abusing a child. But it’s still distributing illegal pornography. There is no victim but it’s illegal to distribute some kinds of porn no matter who you are. If you send a picture to your 15 year old boyfriend I can’t see it. That might be illegal as well but it would be insane. If you put it on the internet…well I still think it’s insane 'cause I not opposed to 15 year olds having sex, or being naked, but I guess encoraging 50 year old guys to think about screwing 15 year olds is not a good idea.
Apparently it’s possible to sexually abuse yourself Of course it is. How many times have people on this board been told, “Go fuck yourself!” And I’m sure everyone here has been guilty of self-abuse on at least one occasion. Shame on all of you.
Now, go screw yourself!
Actually, it’s probably only sexual self-abuse if you tell yourself no, but you refuse to take no for an answer. And contrary to popular belief, back alley self-abuse is far less prevalent then self-abuse within the home. In fact, it’s been estimated, that in 97%* of sexual self-abuse cases, the perpetrator was known to the victim, and was in posession of the victim’s personal identity information.
She’s a naughty, naughty, little girl. She needs to be spanked.
Seriously, she should be charged with something for posting her pics on the Internet. That’s not cool.
I can just imagine some poor bastard jerk’n off to her picture thinking she’s 18 then, he, himself getting charged for some sex crime.
There was a case in Vancouver several years ago where two students at Vancouver Technical School caught having sex in an out-of-the-way part of the school were both charged with statutory rape, since both of their partners were underage.
I took nude pictures of myself (face obscured), including an a shot of me erect, at 17 and posted them online. Apparently that makes be a child pornographer :rolleyes: .
