|
14 Year Old Girl Charged With Child Pornography
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Kellyboop |
A 14 year old girl has been charged with child pornography after she posted nude pics of herself for her boyfriend on Myspace.
HAHA!
Video of the store found here |
|
|
| Prometheus Xex |
| This isn't the first time teenagers were charged with this crime... and it won't be the last. |
|
|
| Elendil |
I'm sorry, but while I think it's morally questionable for the girl to be sending nude pictures to her boyfriend at that age, who the hell has the right to charge a minor with giving her boyfriend (if he's a minor) a naked picture of herself!? What's the difference between that and them making out and him taking a look?
Sheesh... this is just crazy to me. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
She didn't give it to her boyfriend, she posted it on myspace... bit of a difference there lol.
So, anybody have the URL? |
|
|
| Wurm |
If we criminalize her behaviour, we may be able to send a message to others that this is wrong. It will serve as a deterrent to others.:rolleyes:
Classic case of learning time and place. There's a time and a place for showing yourself to a prospect. (He can't be classified as anything but since they're just kids.) Myspace is not that place. |
|
|
| Prometheus Xex |
| She could have just emailed the pics to him instead. Then again if he was caught, then he'd be charged with possession. There's no way to win for them. |
|
|
| Abercrombie |
Sexting is going to be around, period. There's absolutely nothing anyone can do about it, except for education. Teens got to realize that pictures are forever, and have to be kept reminded to treat every picture ever made as PERMANENT.
What is really scary to me is that any girl under 18 has the power to send anyone she wants to jail.
1) Take nude photo of self that looks unauthorized
2) Send photo to the intended victim
3) Notify authorities
4) Laugh and laugh
:nervous: |
|
|
| teufel-man |
This sort of thing totally defeats the purpose of child pornography laws. Child pornography laws are in place to protect children from being victimized by adults forceably taking their (nude) pictures and post them online or whatever. Children are supposed to be the victims and the picture taker is the perpetrator...
So in this case who here is the victim? the 14 year old girl? well if so then she is also the perpetrator.... something doesn't really make sense here!
The laws are there to stop underage children from being taken advantage of by sexual predators... and that doesn't seem to be what is happening here. |
|
|
| StereoPrincess |
| lol. kids these days. |
|
|
| geroin |
| quote: | Originally posted by teufel-man
This sort of thing totally defeats the purpose of child pornography laws. Child pornography laws are in place to protect children from being victimized by adults forceably taking their (nude) pictures and post them online or whatever. Children are supposed to be the victims and the picture taker is the perpetrator...
So in this case who here is the victim? the 14 year old girl? well if so then she is also the perpetrator.... something doesn't really make sense here!
The laws are there to stop underage children from being taken advantage of by sexual predators... and that doesn't seem to be what is happening here. |
+1 |
|
|
| activate |
| quote: | Originally posted by teufel-man
something doesn't really make sense here!
|
It's the US... it's not supposed to make sense. |
|
|
| Spam |
| quote: | Originally posted by teufel-man
This sort of thing totally defeats the purpose of child pornography laws. Child pornography laws are in place to protect children from being victimized by adults forceably taking their (nude) pictures and post them online or whatever. Children are supposed to be the victims and the picture taker is the perpetrator...
So in this case who here is the victim? the 14 year old girl? well if so then she is also the perpetrator.... something doesn't really make sense here!
The laws are there to stop underage children from being taken advantage of by sexual predators... and that doesn't seem to be what is happening here. |
Remember though, she's only been CHARGED.
I'm interested to see exactly what the judge decides. |
|
|
|
|
