http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/36804.html
How can a 15 girl that posts nude / semi-nude pictures of herself online, be charged with “…the sexual abuse of children…”
It just makes no sense. I mean the other charges are probably technically accurate, but “abuse” ?
WTF ?
Perhaps the prosecuter didn’t know what else to charge her with but wanted something as the pictures might cause someone else to be prosecuted.
I suppose it’s just because this is such a new area. Previously if a 15 year-old girl was involved in pornography there would always have to be someone around who was older and therefore open to the charge. It’s only now that a 15 year-old can easily take and distribute pictures of herself with no middle-man involved.
I agree, the charge makes no sense. But it’s probably the only one on the books that even remotely applies in this case. I suppose the logic would be that she ought to have more respect for herself until she’s over sixteen (at which point she’s invited to immediately lose it all again)… oh, what a mess. More respect for other younger or less mature girls who might end up being abused because of her? Maybe a bit better.
The only solution I can think of is a new charge of “self-abuse” being used, but if that’s a crime, 95% of internet users are going to jail anyway.
LOL.
On an interesting note though, does shge realise that by mailing her pics to those other people, she was turning them into felons ?
Right. The statute probably makes no provision either for the age of the perpetrator nor an exception for abuso-de-se , i.e. it doesn’t ordain it’s about “…photographs of another person, under the age…”
The link doesn’t indicate in what state the girl lives. We’d need to look at that state’s statutes to determine whether the charge of sexual abuse is legitimate.
She was also harged with possession and distribution of child pornography.
Now, wouldn’t that be a very crafty way to make trouble for people she didn’t like? Hmm.
No, I am not seriously suggesting that that was her intention.
By putting images of herself on the net she helps keep the market demand for such images working.
Its a bit of a reach but maybe the prosecution will work along similar lines.
The story says the girl distributed the pictures to other people in online chatrooms.
If those people that recieved them were minors then the charges make sense.
Similarly, if two 15 year olds have sex in Florida, they are both guilty of felonies. When the law says you cannot perform lewd assaults on children under 16, it does not exclude those who are under 16 themselves.
According to some articles linked in the PIT thread on this topic, the state in question is Pennsylvania. The PA statutes define the crime:
There’s no exception to the charge for being the subject of the self-portraits.