Teen girl charged with child pornography for nude selfie

S

Starman

New Member
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...s-child-porn-charges-for-sending-nude-selfie/

A 14-year-old girl is facing charges in Minnesota juvenile courts that could lead to her being placed on a sex offender registry—all for taking a nude selfie and sending it to a boy at her school. Prosecutors say that she violated Minnesota's child pornography statute, which bans distributing sexually explicit pictures of underaged subjects.

But a legal brief filed this week by the ACLU of Minnesota says that this is ridiculous. Charging a teenager for taking a nude selfie means the state is charging the supposed victim—an absurd result that the legislature can't have intended when it passed Minnesota's child pornography statute, the ACLU argues.
Click to expand...

Makes perfect sense. We in the U.S. love, love, love our war on drugs which punishes people for "self victimization". This is no different.
 
Merlin99

Merlin99

Visualize whirled peas
PREMO Member
Starman said:
As always: statists gonna state.
Click to expand...

Officials decided to charge the girl with the "felony sex offense of knowingly disseminating pornographic work involving a minor to another person."
Click to expand...

sounds like exactly what she did, do you want to treat some people differently than others?. How very democratic of you.
 
Grumpy

Grumpy

Well-Known Member
Merlin99 said:
sounds like exactly what she did, do you want to treat some people differently than others?. How very democratic of you.
Click to expand...

I believe he stated exactly that a couple days ago in another thread..tho, as usual, he didn't bother to explain when called on it.
 
Hijinx

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
How do you convict a 14 year old girl of taking pictures of herself?
How do you put her name on a registry if she is under aged?

This was certainly a stupid thing to do, IMO anyone taking a nude picture or making a sex video, no matter if they never intend it to be reproduced or shown to the public places themselves at risk of just that.If a girl or woman sends a nude picture to a teen aged boy the result is easily deduced. He is going to show it to his buds.
 
black dog

black dog

Free America
Hijinx said:
How do you convict a 14 year old girl of taking pictures of herself?
How do you put her name on a registry if she is under aged?

This was certainly a stupid thing to do, IMO anyone taking a nude picture or making a sex video, no matter if they never intend it to be reproduced or shown to the public places themselves at risk of just that.If a girl or woman sends a nude picture to a teen aged boy the result is easily deduced. He is going to show it to his buds.
Click to expand...

I agree, it was stupid for sure. But I don't thing what she did was in context with the sprit of the law.
 
Hijinx

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
black dog said:
I agree, it was stupid for sure. But I don't thing what she did was in context with the sprit of the law.
Click to expand...

The one thing I really cannot understand is that this girl is a juvenile, they cannot use her name in a newspaper, then how can they use her name in a public file of sexual offenders? That would look like an open invitation to child molesters.

Of course at this point her going on a sex offender list is speculation. But I don't think legally it could be done
 
Rommey

Rommey

Well-Known Member
Starman said:
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...s-child-porn-charges-for-sending-nude-selfie/



Makes perfect sense. We in the U.S. love, love, love our war on drugs which punishes people for "self victimization". This is no different.
Click to expand...
oh-a-straw-man-you-must-win-arguments-all-the-time.jpg
 
black dog

black dog

Free America
Hijinx said:
The one thing I really cannot understand is that this girl is a juvenile, they cannot use her name in a newspaper, then how can they use her name in a public file of sexual offenders? That would look like an open invitation to child molesters.

Of course at this point her going on a sex offender list is speculation. But I don't think legally it could be done
Click to expand...

The attorney on the sofa says, the registry is for adults only. It's been argued in many States already. It always gets kicked down.
One of the questions I have, has the boy that distributed the picture to others also get charged with distrbution of Child Porn?
 
vraiblonde

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
I don't want to read it again, but my understanding is the ACLU is the one that brought up the sex offender registry as a possibility. It wasn't something that was threatened by the court.
 
black dog

black dog

Free America
vraiblonde said:
I don't want to read it again, but my understanding is the ACLU is the one that brought up the sex offender registry as a possibility. It wasn't something that was threatened by the court.
Click to expand...

What the State has charged her with carry's being in the State registry if she is found guilty.. The ACLU said charging the victim is absurd...
 
vraiblonde

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
black dog said:
What the State has charged her with carry's being in the State registry if she is found guilty.. The ACLU said charging the victim is absurd...
Click to expand...

The ACLU thinks charging anyone is absurd, so I don't really take their progbot opinion into consideration.

I'm guessing this won't get to the punishment stage and the charges will be dropped. Pretty sure this is just a scare tactic so she'll understand the consequences of blathering nekkid pics of herself all over the place.

14. WTH??
 
Hijinx

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
black dog said:
The attorney on the sofa says, the registry is for adults only. It's been argued in many States already. It always gets kicked down.
One of the questions I have, has the boy that distributed the picture to others also get charged with distrbution of Child Porn?
Click to expand...

Did he distribute it or show it. There is a difference.
 
This_person

This_person

Well-Known Member
What she did was technically a violation of the law. Assuming she did what is alleged. If that is true, there's no disputing it was a violation of the law.

So, what is the argument - she's not really guilty, or the law doesn't allow for kids to take nude selfies and spread them around? I'm not sure either thing is a worthwhile point to argue, but for those who think she did no wrong, please continue....
 
Lurk

Lurk

Happy Creepy Ass Cracka
This_person said:
What she did was technically a violation of the law. Assuming she did what is alleged. If that is true, there's no disputing it was a violation of the law.

So, what is the argument - she's not really guilty, or the law doesn't allow for kids to take nude selfies and spread them around? I'm not sure either thing is a worthwhile point to argue, but for those who think she did no wrong, please continue....
Click to expand...

They should take the Comey approach. Though she broke the law, no prosecutor would ever press charges and convict her. Seems we've heard that reasoning in the past 11 or 12 months a few times.
 
Kyle

Kyle

ULTRA-F###ING-MAGA!
PREMO Member
Lurk said:
They should take the Comey approach. Though she broke the law, no prosecutor would ever press charges and convict her.
Click to expand...

I tried that approach with my last speeding ticket.

The judge wasn't a democrat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top