|
government: "If it's hittable, it's jailable"
|
View this Thread in Original format
| SuspicionVandit |
| quote: |
http://news.com.com/Police+blotter+...tml?tag=newsmap
What: Teenagers taking risque photos of themselves are prosecuted for violating child pornography laws.
When: Florida state appeals court rules on January 19.
Outcome: A 2-1 majority upholds conviction on grounds the girl produced a photograph featuring the sexual conduct of a child.
What happened, according to court documents:
Combine unsupervised teenagers, digital cameras and e-mail, and, given sufficient time, you'll end up with risque photographs on a computer somewhere.
There's a problem with that: Technically, those images constitute child pornography. That's what 16-year-old Amber and 17-year-old Jeremy, her boyfriend, both residents of the Tallahassee, Fla., area, learned firsthand. (Court documents include only their initials, A.H. and J.G.W., so we're using these pseudonyms to make this story a little easier to read.)
On March 25, 2004, Amber and Jeremy took digital photos of themselves naked and engaged in unspecified "sexual behavior." The two sent the photos from a computer at Amber's house to Jeremy's personal e-mail address. Neither teen showed the photographs to anyone else.
Court records don't say exactly what happened next--perhaps the parents wanted to end the relationship and raised the alarm--but somehow Florida police learned about the photos.
Amber and Jeremy were arrested. Each was charged with producing, directing or promoting a photograph featuring the sexual conduct of a child. Based on the contents of his e-mail account, Jeremy was charged with an extra count of possession of child pornography.
Some more background: Under a 1995 ruling in a case called B.B. v. State, the Florida Supreme Court said that a 16-year-old could not be found delinquent for having sex with another 16-year-old.
"The crux of the state's interest in an adult-minor situation is the prevention of exploitation of the minor by the adult," the majority said at the time. The court ruled that a Florida statute punishing sex between teens was "unconstitutional as applied to this 16-year-old as a basis for a delinquency proceeding."
The same applies to Amber and Jeremy. Even though he is a year older than her, he is still a minor in Florida.
In other words, under Florida law, Amber and Jeremy would be legally permitted to engage in carnal relations, but they're criminals if they document it.
Amber's attorney claimed that the right to privacy protected by the Florida Constitution shielded the teen from prosecution, an argument that a trial judge rejected. Amber pleaded no contest to the charges and was placed on probation, though she reserved her right to appeal her constitutional claim.
By a 2-1 vote, the appeals court didn't buy it. Judge James Wolf, a former prosecutor, wrote the majority opinion.
Wolf speculated that Amber and Jeremy could have ended up selling the photos to child pornographers ("one motive for revealing the photos is profit") or showing the images to their friends. He claimed that Amber had neither the "foresight or maturity" to make a reasonable estimation of the risks on her own. And he said that transferring the images from a digital camera to a PC created innumerable problems: "The two computers (can) be hacked."
Judge Philip Padovano dissented. He wrote that the law "was designed to protect children from abuse by others, but it was used in this case to punish a child for her own mistake. In my view, the application of this criminal statute to the conduct at issue violates the child's right to privacy under Article 1, Section 23 of the Florida Constitution." |
i don't want to go to jail :( |
|
|
| Spacey Orange |
| i doubt the florida ruling has precedential value in Silent Hill |
|
|
| Theresa |
ing people are stupid.
:whip: |
|
|
| SuspicionVandit |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spacey Orange
i doubt the florida ruling has precedential value in Silent Hill |
george bush is hinting at spreading democracy to my universe :( :( :( |
|
|
| Mattis |
Seriously retarded.
Another girl was prosecuted a few years back for taking photos of herself masturbating. She was like 15 or something.
THEY CHARGED HER WITH CHILD ABUSE ON HERSELF AND PRODUCTION OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY OF HERSELF... :wtf:
I MEAN COME THE ON! :crazy: |
|
|
| lex400sc |
| this country is ing lame when it comes to law. |
|
|
| malek |
do they have to take pics of themselves naked ?
the thing you guys don't get is that they can easily fall in the wrong hands, relationships can turn sour in a blink of an eye. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | | Wolf speculated that Amber and Jeremy could have ended up selling the photos to child pornographers ("one motive for revealing the photos is profit") or showing the images to their friends. |
haha, I like how people can be punished by the law for what they could do.
this country and its people. (this is the 2nd time I have said that today, wheeee) |
|
|
| Zharen |
| Pretty stupid. I mean yes, the kids shouldn't have taken nude pics of themselves anyway, but since when were committing crimes on yourself...a crime? I mean this is the equivalent of a teen who attempted suicide to be charged with attempted murder. What the Hell happened to free will and equal rights? If people want to do stupid things to themselves, than that's all fine by me. But I think it's pointless and an utter waste of tax dollars for them to go to jail for it. What he could have done nice. This is almost like Minority Report now. |
|
|
| washout |
| i think those kids are off to the start of great sexual careers, either way. |
|
|
| Ian |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
haha, I like how people can be punished by the law for what they could do.
this country and its people. (this is the 2nd time I have said that today, wheeee) |
precisely. When you're that age, you have no idea of the consequences of things, especially if you're in love, the world seems a whole different place to what you find it out to be. |
|
|
| Orbax |
uhm under that same logic of the primary cause of alarm being the ability of computer to be hacked and files accessed...wouldnt that mean that any person owning a computer is liable as well due to the fact that they could be hacked and child porn put ONTO them?
If he is going to make a claim under tort law and then try that logic...wow. Especially if you consider Tort law being something you prosecute people for AFTER something has happened and you are showing they should have known better.
Also, I can kind of see why he did that IF they looked at that kids computer and it was pics of him giving the thumbs up and railing in her arse and then cumming all over her face and he kept the pictures in a folder on his comp called "My gallery"
If it was just sitting there in the archived section of his gmail account and it was just a naked 16 year old girl... i mean who doesnt have those! |
|
|
|
|
