Another installment of: Pulling the stick out!

[AndyMarquisLIVE]

Police blotter: Teens prosecuted for racy photos

<CITE>By Declan McCullagh, CNET News.com
Published on ZDNet News: February 9, 2007, 5:45 AM PT
</CITE><SCRIPT language=JavaScript> var dwInfo = "&oid=2100-9588_22-6157857&ptId=2100&onId=9588&sId=22&asId=6157857"; </SCRIPT>

"Police blotter" is a weekly News.com report on the intersection of technology and the law. 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.
​

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-6157857.html

Now, are they gonna prosecute half of MySpace users?

 

[vraiblonde]

Anything minors do is not a "pull the stick out" issue. If that were my daughter, she'd be thrilled to be in police custody, believe me.

 

[AndyMarquisLIVE]

Anything minors do is not a "pull the stick out" issue. If that were my daughter, she'd be thrilled to be in police custody, believe me.

First amendment - sorry. It's something for the parents to deal with, not the police. And if the parents don't have the testicles to do anything, then THEY should be prosecuted along with that child for Child neglect.

 

[vraiblonde]

First amendment - sorry.

Oh, I beg your pardon, but there is no "first amendment" when it comes to underage pornography.

If my kid did something like that, I might let the cops charge them and teach 'em a lesson. Tough ####.

 

[AndyMarquisLIVE]

Oh, I beg your pardon, but there is no "first amendment" when it comes to underage pornography.

If my kid did something like that, I might let the cops charge them and teach 'em a lesson. Tough ####.

So, what about half of MySpace users.

 

[AndyMarquisLIVE]

Oh, I beg your pardon, but there is no "first amendment" when it comes to underage pornography.

If my kid did something like that, I might let the cops charge them and teach 'em a lesson. Tough ####.

She sent the picture to her boyfriend. I'm not saying it's acceptable but she didn't upload it or anything. She sent it to her boyfriend. Do you know how many people .... She ... You of all people Vrai.

I guess I'm glad you've got the testicles to do something. Although I think it's more a parenting thing than a legal thing.

 

[AndyMarquisLIVE]

Oh, it happened in Florida, enough said.

12 years-old and you can be charged as an adult but 16 is not adult enough to have sex. This is no different than a woman carrying a picture of her BF's testicles around, IMHO.

If she was under 16, I'd see the legal implications.

 

[donbarzini]

First of all, First Amendment? you've got to be kidding me. There is no Amendment in the Constitution that allows you to transmit kiddie porn.(I know Vrai already said it, but, DAMN!!!)

Second, charging someone as an adult has to do with their mental ability to appreciate the crime committed and the punishment associated with it. Equating that to not allowing teenagers to have sex is laughable at best. The sudden rush of hormones is inversely related to how much reasoning capacity is left intact. Equating a 12 yo going home to get a gun and shooting someone with two horny 16 yo kids is ridiculous.

 

[donbarzini]

And by the way, Andy, you gonna be the one to pay for the kid when mama applies for state aid? .....................thought so.

 

[AndyMarquisLIVE]

First of all, First Amendment? you've got to be kidding me. There is no Amendment in the Constitution that allows you to transmit kiddie porn.(I know Vrai already said it, but, DAMN!!!)

Second, charging someone as an adult has to do with their mental ability to appreciate the crime committed and the punishment associated with it. Equating that to not allowing teenagers to have sex is laughable at best. The sudden rush of hormones is inversely related to how much reasoning capacity is left intact. Equating a 12 yo going home to get a gun and shooting someone with two horny 16 yo kids is ridiculous.

This was more of a parenting issue, and if the parent isn't willing to do anything - then let the law intervene.

I don't think what they did is right, but this is just laughable as a whole. I'm just hoping they go after any and all MySpace users who post nude in their pictures and upload them.

Of course they won't.

 

[donbarzini]

This was more of a parenting issue, and if the parent isn't willing to do anything - then let the law intervene.

I don't think what they did is right, but this is just laughable as a whole. I'm just hoping they go after any and all MySpace users who post nude in their pictures and upload them.

Of course they won't.

The parenting issue first: Evidently one of the parents DID do something, otherwise, how did the police find out?

As far as MySpace, "they" don't have time to peruse each and every MySpace page, so until they get a complaint, with evidence........

 

[Pushrod]

Oh, I beg your pardon, but there is no "first amendment" when it comes to underage pornography.

If my kid did something like that, I might let the cops charge them and teach 'em a lesson. Tough ####.

They were being teenagers. Jeesh, give them a break, it may not have been the smartest thing, but is it okay that they are now convicted sex offenders and must register as such for the rest of their lives?

 

[vraiblonde]

They were being teenagers.

When I was a teenager, I wasn't taking nude pics of myself and emailing them to people. How about you?

 

[Ken King]

When I was a teenager, I wasn't taking nude pics of myself and emailing them to people. How about you?

Yeah, because there wasn't email. I bet you did mail a few Polaroids though.

 

[Toxick]

When I was a teenager, I wasn't taking nude pics of myself and emailing them to people. How about you?

I sure didn't.


But that is not because I wasn't a randy pig.

It was due to a lack of technology.



When I was a teenager, nobody ever thought to put a camera on a telephone, nobody ever thought to connect a wireless phone to the intarweb, and the world wide web was still just a mere twinkle in Al Gore's eye.


Had we the technology back then, as we do now, I can say with no small amount of certainty:

Hell yeah! My junk would have been splashed across every website I could make a page for. And you people should be grateful that Mrs Toxick has beaten a modicum of decorum and self-restraint into my formerly debaucherous self.

 

[vraiblonde]

I bet you did mail a few Polaroids though.

You'd lose that bet.

 

[donbarzini]

Hell yeah! My junk would have been splashed across every website I could make a page for. And you people should be grateful that Mrs Toxick has beaten a modicum of decorum and self-restraint into my formerly debaucherous self.

On behalf of forumites everywhere, thank Mrs Toxick for us. Please????

 

[Mikeinsmd]

You'd lose that bet.

Sorry hunney but I found a pic of your first BF and the camera he used!!

 

[itsbob]

When I was a teenager, I wasn't taking nude pics of myself and emailing them to people. How about you?

Did we have computers when you were a teenager??

 

[Makavide]

So when does it become child pornography?

These kids took some pictures for their personnal use, but say they have a nasty breakup and one of them sends them into the web? Does it become child porn then?

How can it not be child porn on one computer, but become child porn on another?

And if the "owners" of the original pictures are not liable for creating/possesing child porn because "it's not child porn to them", then when they give the pictures away the how can the new owners be charged with possesion of child porn - it wasn't child porn when it was given to them.

Which could create all sorts of problems, because sooner or later the child porn industry will just say the kids gave them permission to have the pictures they created.

Child porn is child porn - no matter who creates it or possess it.