so she offended herself? well maybe she could also sue herself to make a bit of $$
A 15-year-old Ohio girl was arrested on felony child pornography charges for allegedly sending nude cell phone pictures of herself to classmates. Authorities are considering charging some of the students who received the photos as well. The unnamed student from Licking Valley High School in Newark, Ohio was arrested Friday …
...That's a shame (think of this Seinfeld-style.)
Yes, these rules are rather broken in some of the US. People have also gotten the whole "sexual offender" label slapped on here for public urination in a few cases.. someone's too drunk and pissing on a bush or whatever, instead of getting public urination and public drunkeness (some fines and probably a night in the drunk tank..) they get this. Then they get caught up in the other laws set up for actual perverts, so they can't live in a lot of areas, etc.
Hopefully they'll be more reasonable on this, I mean, they've certainly had the scare put into them, I'm sure they're not going to send each other any more nudie pics.
I don't see how someone can be too young to consent to sexual behavior (e.g. being photographed nude) but old enough that their actions can have such long term criminal consequences.
If you can try them as adults, then they should implicitly have the right or ability to consent.
If they don't have the ability to consent, convict them as juveniles, and seal the court records and let them the criminals go free when they're 18.
Or even better yet, the prosecutors should go about trying to reduce violent crime.
<insert profanities here>
OK, now that I've vented ... if this isn't the most ridiculous misuse of a legal statute then it must be awfully close. What's next? A 15-year old looks in a bathroom mirror at his or her naked self and is booked for putting in a pornographic display involving a child?
I have travelled to and within the US in the past, but with this, the Patriot Act and related matters, I think I will resolve never to go there again. (Apologies to the minority - intelligent and reasonable people - who are stuck there).
Egads, teenagers engaging in elicit activities? I'm shocked and appalled. I used to think that prosecuting those responsible for meth labs or domestic violence was important, but now that this has been brought to light... well, good on 'em for taking up this fight.
Also, am I the only one sniggering at the name "Licking Valley" in the context of the article?
They will convict my parents of taking (I'm talking about 55 years ago) pictures me while in my crib. I seem to recall that there is one where the slat (placed too far apart for todays standards!) is strategically placed in the photograph (chemical based, not digital). They even got it processed with no complaints. I doubt that it would always go through in today's environment!
p.s. I was about 1.5 years old at the time.
Feel free to stay (presumably) in the country where - everywhere - (not just in some little asshole jurisdiction) ANYONE can be charged and jailed for having the wrong kind of porn, you can be jailed for writing a naughty short story, and you'll be videotaped and have your car tracked even if you avoid all of the above.
I'll take this. At least this (incredibly stupid) crap tends to get weeded out when it gets to the supreme court, since we put that whole 'constitution' thing in. You might want to give it a try.
"and tell people I'm Canadian."
It's no better up here. Entirely fictional under-age porn is illegal in Canada. You can be (and people have been) prosecuted for possessing a cartoon depicting (arguably - not the least absurd point of the legislation in question is determining the age of a completely fictional entity) under-age sex. Yep, a cartoon. No real people involved at any point.
Let's face it, most of 'the western world' is entirely insane when it comes to anything related to private parts.
OK, this is just out of control and after a serious intraspective, I'm moving out of Ohio to Alabama or Mississippi, where the people seem to have a little more common sense.
I've been to Licking County, and given the humorous nature of this article, it's not nearly as exciting there as ones imagination might, well, might imagine.
That leads me to the next issue to ponder, however I feel like I should invoke the 5th amendment, as I wasn't even born when all of the following events were set in motion. There is a little town in the northwest corner of Ohio called Findlay (it's actually pronounced fin-lee), which happens to be in Hancock county. To add insult to injury, the local high-school's mascots are "The Trojans", and the local college's mascot is an "Oiler".
When viewed completely out of context, and given peoples pervicidal (c) tendancies, this community, all if its citizens and two learning institutions are a recepie for disaster, (metaphorically, fucked) in a court of law.
Once again, while pondering this entire sad event (sad, because until recently, I was reasonably content living in Ohio), it caused me to think of a way to capitolize on the sheer lunacy that has invaded the US legal system.
Fact: I am semi-management.
Fact: I am in charge of my department
Fact: I am the only employee in my department
Fact: I am responsible for writing my own job performance reviews
Fact: I am my own supervisor, as my actual supervisor is almost 200 miles away and may see 2 or 3 times a year...
Hypothetical: If I use the restroom during working hours, can I sue myself and the company for sexual harassment and inappropriate contact? Suing myself is a lost cause as I really don't have a pot to piss in, so to speak, but the company has really deep pockets.
So, in theory, I could retire with millions in compensation, after doing 3-5 years in prison.
Mine is the one with "lighten up" on the back
I suppose at this day and date it would be unacceptible to put the heads of the government officials involved in this on a stick and parade them through town?
Next thing you know, they'll be charging every 14 year old that masterbates with child molestation, and woe to any parent that catches them!
You have to be kidding. A 16-yo girl sent nude pics to here fellow Licking Valley students. My Leisure Suit Larry sense is tingling like crazy.
On other news, "man convicted for attempted first degree murder after suicide failure". Coming to you courtesy of Big Brother. Here is your receipt for your husband, and here is my receipt, for your receipt.
"parents jailed for Facebook baby pornography"
"Michelangelo winged underage nude pics censored"
"12-yo babysitter jailed for bathing a nude 2-yo"
"6 grader jailed for carving sexually explicit representations of his female teacher on his table -teacher under investigation"
"teenager caught masturbating jailed for underage sex"
Print this post, and stick it on your fridge. You'll be less flabbergasted when you'll actually read these headlines in the Daily Mail (or when you'll watch them on Fox News).
Licking Valley..hahahahahha it couldn't be made up could it?
I find the name of the area offensive, can I sue them for pornography by implication???
This is so stupid and PC gone exceptionally mad, whatever next? Please, please, any Americans on here, do not vote the Republicans back in!!
Just another story that convincves me more that it's just a nation of window lickers...these kids are teenagers, this sort of thing is what teenagers do, esepcially when they have been told not to! So now the punishment for the rest of this girls life is to be on a sex offenders register, who did she violate in this case when she was sending pictures of HERSELF....no really they are a nation of window lickers!
Whether you get anywhere with your lawsuit depends amongst other things on the law relating to vicarious liability. I don't know about the US, but in the UK the doctrine of Vicarious Liability can be roughly summed up as "The Employer (usually the body corporate) is liable for the sins of the Employee". You would have to dodge the counter argument of Contributory Negligence, but I could see it becoming quite an entertaining case when it gets to court. Especially as the US legal system does seem to have taken leave of its senses!
Let us all know when you get a court date, and I'm sure we could arrange for a band of supporters to take ringside seats in the public gallery!
While it pains me to point this out, allowing wiggle room for recording ero ero activities between fully consenting minors, somewhat removes the justifications for the cudgel of family friendly legislation when a consenting minor and not quite minor get caught doing the same thing.
If they acknowledged that minor a (as in this case) has some right to be nud' at any point in time for any reason (to extend a bit), there is some twisted logic that could apply it to an imbalanced age relationship, and that would have the think of the children brigade up in arms.
Almost feel sorry for those poor legislators, who in the interests of representing the will of the vocal majority, have to go to such bizarre lengths.
almost, but not.
... if it had been entirely ignored it would have been another teenage "prank" that would have been rapidly forgotten. Now the poor girl has to live with this for the rest of her life.
Perhaps they law enforcement agencies would be better employed rounding up the greedy Bustards that sold sub prime mortgages.....
@Gene Cash - great comment!
Get a warrant to search the judges house, find the family album, search for the inevitable baby in the bathtub pic, and lock him up for child pr0n.
Then ask him what he thinks of his ruling on the girl.
Personally, if she was dumb enough to take pics of her own body and send them to classmates, it's her problem. She'll learn the hard way (and soon, if what I remember of school is still accurate) that once you send something out in the wild, it never disappears and always comes back to haunt you. At least one of her pics is probably already posted on a web page somewhere.
Otherwise, I totally agree with Mike on this. If she can get 20 years, then she's old enough to be responsible for her acts. If not, then there's no way she should get more than community service.
"I'll take this. At least this (incredibly stupid) crap tends to get weeded out when it gets to the supreme court, since we put that whole 'constitution' thing in. You might want to give it a try."
Uh... apart from the fact that over half the supremes are paid for by Dubya so will toe the party line and he's (metaphorically) wiping his a$$ on your constitution.
I'm not claiming we're much saner over here but you do seem to be leading the field in insane applications of hastily rushed through legislation.
"In 2004, a 16-year-old girl and her 17-year-old boyfriend took pictures of themselves while naked and engaged in unspecified [LEGAL] "sexual behavior." They didn't show the pictures to anyone, but they did send them to the boy's email address."
My recollection of this case is the boy received a 10 year sentence in prison. They're nutters. This is the way Britain is heading, by making it a crime to view sex videos of simulated acts, even if the act itself was legal and the filming of it was legal. The Jacqui Smith law.
How is this any different from nudism? A nudist magazine of the 1960's like Health and Efficiency? When did the body become so shocking that nutters like Smith lock people up for pictures of it?
So, in the country which has the right to bear arms, you can't bare yourself in a private photo if you happen to be a minor else you'll get a 20 year sexual offender status.....
...shouldn't they simply be given counselling?
Paris, well, we all know about her baring things... :)
Well this is just crazy, I recently purchased a Photography book and it contained 2/3 photos of underage girls naked in it, question of art but I found it a little distasteful. Anyhow would i get prosecuted for buying this book even before I knew the contents of it? Same as a text, how can someone be prosecuted for receiving something they had no control over.
It also sounds like this girl needs some therapy rather than a prison sentence. and if some kids of 16/17 want to take pictures of themselves together for their personal pleasure then why not. Its not like some pedophile made them take the pictures.
US Law makers you're fucking retarded.
However don't for a moment that we Brits will be outdone, we shall find something all the more stupid and retarded to prove that we are indeed more retarded then you! Mark our words you shall not be allowed to be the lowest common denominator in the "developed" world for long!
You have to wonder what the prosecuters are trying to achieve. Are they trying to proove just how stupid the law can be? Or do they actually think they are doing the right thing?
Just how far wrong can you possibly go with a law written to protect children?
What's the worst thing that could be happening here? These people are actually trying to hurt people out of some sadistic evil sense of their own importance.
"Come here little children and tell me all your illegal sexual thoughts so I can blackmail you into giving me sexual favours in return for me dropping the charges. Otherwise you will be taken away to a childrens home in Jersey".
Please site your sources. While you're there, look up the "Magna Carta".
I will admit that the American War of Indepenence was as a direct result of the then parliament completely ignoring said document, but then Camp X-Ray is a complete ignorance of the U.S Bill of Rights. Quote:
"No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
In both cases, the failing is not with the mandate itself but with the people elected to implement it. You are right to have pride in the U.S Constitution, as I am to have pride in the UK's (considerably older) democracy. However, neither you nor I should ever stop questioning when the liberties of both ourselves and others are being eroded by those officials we have elected to enfource and protect our rights, regardless of their motives.
"Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious" -- Oscar Wilde.
Way back in USA when cities were just beginning to be called cities and noboy had plumbing in their city homes there were horse pulled toilet trollies.
Back then there were not any bathrooms for him or her.
These trollies you climb into and let business comence sitting next to someone else with no
privacy shield and people would sit and read the paper be they man or woman.
Sally hops into the trolly.....
Oh hi Susan, nice day out today yes? As she lifts her dress to sit next to you.
Back then modesty and morality was not so hard core as one may think.
ok ok, sorry!
*ahem* I meant like they say.....people are..????
that's right and quite a few of that kind of person seem to live in this county it would seem, the rest work for the political and legal professions, mostly....the rest of them vote for those folks.....people who have a clue are really the minority so something to be slightly proud of there....doing something though, now there's the hard part...
Once again a perfectly good set of laws and rules to protect at risk victims, being abused by bored, power-mad prats.
This reminds me of that story a few years ago where a parent took perfectly innocent photos of their 4 year old in the bath, sent them to Boots for processing and next thing Knacker was beating down the door demanding to know where the rest of the child porn was stashed.
Some people in power need a serious beating with the reality stick, knock some common sense into them. Most kids these days start becoming sexually aware by the time they hit 12, kids these days gather knowledge at a much faster rate than previous generations ever have, sadly they haven't obtained the capacity to digest that knowledge at the same rate, hence they fall foul of laws like these.
Everyone knows that banning Conkers in Schools is just another plot the UK government has put in place to save the environment. In 100 years time we will be overrun by Conker trees, they will be every where!
The air will be cleaner because the trees will be churning out Oxygen like never before! Then we will be able to cut them down and turn them into fuel! Everybodys happy! Except school children of course.
I mean, how can playing Conkers be dangerous? C'mon it's not is it? Just a stupid excuse.
PH Cos I'd love her to play with my Conkers.
I remember being 15 back in 1979 and taking pics of me and my 15 year old girl freind with my parents Poloroid. I wonder what ever happend to those pics....
I wish the state would get out of the baby sitting business. Plus, how can the accused be charged with abusing herself? I hope she tells the state to F***OFF and mind their own business.
The problem is not a specific UK or US problem. Examples of such crass idiocy can be found everywhere in the legislative world. It's indicative of the general standard of pillock who seeks (and unfortunately gains) authoritative office.
The "party machine" in pretty well ALL so-called democratic countries suborns most with political ambitions, and parties are such entrenched behemoths that the old cliche "Resistance is futile - you will be assimilated" was never truer.
We (of a certain age) only have ourselves to blame as we were the ones who fell for and have apparently perpetuated the politically-correct liberal intelligentsia since the 1960's. Believe me, there ain't nobody more fascist & draconian than a "liberal" given power.
We can't prise their fingers from power - maybe it's time we contemplated breaking their fingers if that's what it needs?
Actually, I can see this as protecting adults from children.
What if she'd then tattled to the police a few months later that they'd taken indecent pictures of here? Wouldn't matter if there's proof it wasn't their fault, there'd be some people burning down their house and killing their pets to drive that sick animal far far away from their little girl.
It's unfortunate that it results in a girl with some serious problems being put in a place where these problems will be blown up into full-on abuse.
Of course there is a point to the story. It's not the one about the American Police trying to prosecute a 16 year old, it's not about self posed photos are deemed pornography.
In my opinion this is one where the whole system has let this child down. Read again how this girl is an a foster situation. Now foster situations are usually symptomatic of a bigger problem. Either the child was removed from the parents or the parents were removed from the child. In either case it is no wonder that the child is wanting to be popular, and unfortunately the way that this kid thinks she can become popular is showing her body to others.
At no-point during this story (and yes I've read a couple of other sources) does it mention that the kid is going to be counciled, going to be shown why it's perhaps unhealthy to show your bits.
Theamericans seem to have the ability to take things to extremes and wonder why we laugh at them. I saw a episode of mythbusters where they were debunmking the myth that you can electrocute yourself by pissing on an electrified rail. The scenes where they we simulating a dummy man taking a piss was pixilated. It was not a penis. It was not a fake penis. It was a plastic pipe......and they blocked it out. Unbelieveable.
Of course that is no worse than an american TV programme where they blocked out a dog taking a piss against a lamppost. Something you can see every day just by taking a walk, and they had to block it.
Remember when you were a teenager? Remember when mother-nature threw the switch and all those pesky hormones started to rampage around your body making you do stupid things? Well, the people who framed the laws that allow this silly kid to be publicly humiliated have no such memories. They're the ones who pressed the skip-button just when life started to get interesting.
"At no-point during this story (and yes I've read a couple of other sources) does it mention that the kid is going to be counciled, going to be shown why it's perhaps unhealthy to show your bits."
Why exactly is it unhealthy to show your bits? In many places/cultures its perfectly acceptable. Why are you so uptight about nudity?
Not really, this is from a country which considers "don't do it" sufficient sex education.
Laugh now, because it's the thin end of the wedge, and it won't be funny when it becomes the norm, no matter how ill-concieved what she did was, that poor girl is a victim of the state, and now she'll suffer for it.
There are times when I get pissed off living here in Germany but I only have to read one of these stories about madness of the authorities in US or UK and I cheer up.
The funny thing is, teenage pregnancy rates are higher in the USA and UK than in France and Germany, despite (or perhaps, because of) their apparent liberal/immoral attitudes.
I'm a Brit living in the US and I'm struck by a few things:
1. Brits sniggering at "stupid Yanks" - believe me, the UK is hardly leading by shining example. I could (but won't bother) pointing out absolutely lunatic things happening in the UK that just boggles Americans' minds.
2. Stupid Yank rules/laws exist, to my mind, because of the concept of "zero tolerance" ie "We're too fucking lazy to think for ourselves, so let's have a one-size-fits-all rule and we'll call it zero-tolerance to show how tough we are on bad behaviour". What happened to that girl is a perfect example.
The girl is a foster child, and there are some pretty well documented cases of foster children having trouble fitting in. So she was probably just trying to "get popular" - not smart, but not criminal. The only law I think one should consider is indecent exposure - and then let her off witha warning.
Throw this girl into the court system and you might as well just toss her life away. I don't think the DA cares, though - he'd rather make himself famous for "saving the children!"
So now I'm responsible for what people send me via SMS? Does that apply to e-mail, too? If that's the case, the large amount of incoming SPAM probably has criminalized the entire US population - at least, in this guy's eyes.
He should be trounced from office - especially using scare tactics with children. "20 years in prison" - as juveniles? Just how sicko is he? It'd never happen, but you know he probably wishes it could.
They wanted to stop 15 year old kids from doing naughty things, so they had a school meeting of all the kids to say "This is naughty and terrible and you mustn't do it because it's bad!"?
About something that to a 15 year old doesn't seem bad at all, but is *very* interesting?
They explained in detail what they mustn't do, in public in front of all their classmates?
And ONLY ONE of those kids promptly went out and did exactly that?
So a girl who is underage takes pictures of her self nude. Sends them to another boy/ girl (her own age) and she is being taken to court for child porn.
That is what I just read...and if so it is completely ridiculous. It is one thing to have a child seduced by an adult (which is WRONG) but completely different when these kids are of identical age and are sexually active with one another. If they are sexually active, so be it. Lets just hope the sex ed portion of American school system has taught them to use protection. I really don't see the harm in what she or the recipients have done (so long as the recipients are the same age as the sender). That being said it is completely different when those pictures are transferred from say a 15 year old classmate to an 18 yo + individual. That is where the child porn laws need to be enforced.
Having read the comments I see we get the usual smug people saying stoopid yanks or dumb americans. We have proof that only 50% of Americans are stupid, half of them did not vote for Bush the 2nd time. Possibly if the voting was rigged then even more of them are not stupid.
This sort of insane jobsworth rule following is happening everywhere. People seem to be embracing the most stupid rules. I am not just talking about them hugging the rules, these people are letting their pelvises touch as well.
Common sense tells them that this is stupid. All common sense people, ie most people, know this is stupid. However there seem to be a huge number of the wrong type of people in power. They may not have much power but whatever power they have they are determined to use it in the most perverse way.
It's a global phenomenum. Something makes these people think they are doing the right thing. Or at least they get something out of doing it and think they will get away with it. Which they do seem to.
what a great way to help our youth with their body issues. "see that part of you? it's DIRTY! WRONG! if anyone sees it you will GO TO JAIL! you are an evil person for even having one! Don't even look at it and for gods sake DONT TOUCH IT!"
pah-lease.... want to know what so many young girls have such issues about sex? look no farther then crap like this.
I'm reminded (probably for no very good reason apart from the "Licking Valley" moniker juxtaposed with overzealous moral prudery) of a story told about Alaister Crowley (self-professed "world's wickedest man" ) about how after his move to Boleskine House overlooking Loch Ness, he had written to the local Vigilance Society complaining that "prostitution is most unpleasantly conspicuous" in the area. The society sent round an observer who found no evidence. Crowley wrote back: "Conspicuous by its absence, you fools!" I'm sure the Good People of Licking Valley would fail to see the humour in that story too.
So is this where I go watch one of those TV shows that have child birth, show babies right after being born, or on some of the smaller cultures that dont wear shirts. then sue the company that made the film for producing child p0rn, sue the channel that aired the show for promoting child p0rn and sue the parents of the child for letting their child be part of a p0rn?
I have seen a few informational shows that have nearly fully exposed pre-teen, teen, and adult nudity, these being publicly aired.
Anybody with half a brain, or that had a date as a teenager knows that this is fairly common, it has just become easier to do with technology. In high school I remember several people talking about their sexual acts, and discussing who is and isn't active. So either this nude photo was shown to someone who was offended (trying to be a good child and do what they are told is right) or someone who was careless and either let someone see it or talked about it when in earshot of someone with authority who thought it wrong.
Teaching only abstinance is very ignorant of the fact that we can't control hormones, and we can't watch the children 24/7. the more you try to control something, the more you realize you dont really have control.
But I'm curious, what is the sudden difference between a 17 year old male and an 18 year old male?
Just curious, as there is a certain idiocy to the notion. Suddenly you go from curious teen to crazed peado sex monster (which isn't actually the case as technically speaking a peadophile is interested in children who have not reached pubity, as physically speaking animals are wired to want to shag something that can have children making wanting to shag a teenager normal except for the various moral constructs created by various societies.)
The Anglian world really needs to sort itself the fuck out in terms of sex, body identity, maturity and, sexuality. However they just tend to go arghhhh sex is bad m'kay. Don't do it. If you want sex it means you're going to hell, m'kay? And till you goto hell we'll ruin your life for being a slut m'kay? mmm'kay?
So... if they are upset at the camera phones. What about Social Networking and photo sharing websites like Photobox, MySpace, Facbook, etc? These same kinds of photos are published to these websites. And then shared "privately" among friends.
(Or there was a case earlier this year when Photobox got hacked and all of these supposed "private" photos became available from various hacker's websites.... There were clearly some teenage \ school kid photos in there)
Which, implies to me, that these sites should also be sued for "aiding and abetting" in the distribution of illegal images.
I assume they have already sued the manufacturer of the camera phone? And the mobile phone carrier....
Well, my suggestions are just as stupid as this case. Have they dropped the intellegence tests from the Police and Courts? Really does look like the idiots have taken over the asylum - on BOTH sides of the Pond. UK and USA are now as bad as each other with these stupid responses.
(Oh - and the "Ban Conkers" story was bogus. Made up by the tabloids. http://www.hse.gov.uk/myth/september.htm Just like the "Winterval" story they drag out each year supposedly "banning Christmas". (Google it for more info...) Idiot\fictional reporting also has a lot to answer for in this day....)
Not only have neither the Gov't NOR Health and Safety banned cokers in a recent conkers competition the Health and Safety guys sent in a team, pointedly not wearing goggles.
You can't legislate for nutters nor Daily Mail headlines but you guys seem to lap them up as gospel along with EU straight banana lies
Got to make a name in an election year; but again, this has nothing to do with justice and just barely anything to do with the law. I won't even get into whether it's actually anyone else's business (delete in off your phone if you don't like it).
Licking county is in the center of the state and near enough to the appalachian section that it may be (mentally) included there. Remember, Ohio helped to elect dubya, so there are plenty of retarted blue-noses here who think they have a noodly-given right to run every one else's life;
no matter how incompetent they are with their own.
here's hoping there is a hell and all these morons go there...the sooner the better
"That being said it is completely different when those pictures are transferred from say a 15 year old classmate to an 18 yo + individual. That is where the child porn laws need to be enforced."
Why's that? the age of sexual consent ,for example, here in Sweden is 15, so here it wouldn't be different at all. Places like the USUK can keep their mock morality, sky-high teenage pregnancy rates and obviously pitiful sex-"education" - which leaves teenagers vulnerable in the first place to unwanted pregnancy and disease. No amount of pitchforking teenage "paedos" will make a proper sexual welfare policy for adolescents and young adults.
The conkers thing was tosh - the health and safety ppl in the UK are sponsoring the national conkers competition this year (apparenlty they said on the radio that injuries got through playing conkers were not worth bothering about..) I think it was some school head who one their own decided just thier school kids couldnt play it and the lying waste of print space local paper made out it was some stupid H & S rule.. which thro the media of the inter-rumour got turned into major story which probably only made the Daily Wail more untruth-profits.
Spot on. :-)
Oh and another thing: Career politicians.
Career politicians, WTF is going on there then?
These tossers have done nothing else. School, College, University, politics. Time was when politicians took up politics _after_ a career in industry or the like, and had some idea about life. Bah.
Paris, because she's a career know nothing, rather like Brown.
> Believe me, there ain't nobody more fascist & draconian than a "liberal" given power.
Speaking as a liberal (with a small 'l') I can't say I recognise many liberal principles (Civil Liberties, Basic Human Rights, Presumption of Innocence etc) in the control-freak, nanny state legislation that has been brought in by this country and by the USA.
So, are Blair, Brown and Bush really "closet liberals"...?
Too young to consent to taking the photos of herself but old enough to be convicted of taking the photos.
I suppose there's a simple solution, get the damn kids the moment they are born - nine* times out of ten they're born naked, then you could lock them up for twenty years where they can't get at the paedos^?^?...^?^? - sorry paedos can't get at them.
* nine or possibly more
Oh wait, that's not gonna work here either.
So, first we got people that can serve the government, but can't drink.
Then we have ppl who at 18 sleep with their girlfriend a few weeks younger and they're pedo's
Now people are.. what, sexually assaulting.. themselves? Feck.
What is my stupid country going to do next? Vote in a stupid retard? Ah wait. Attack a foreign country for no legitimate reason whatsoever? Ooo so close. Detain anyone we please (from whatever country we please, not just people in the US) and torture them? Ack, done that too.
The stupid cops were there to preach "don't do this or you'll get in deep legal trouble" instead of saying "do you really want naked pictures of yourself out in the wild, being forwarded to people you don't know? What are you going to do when they get printed on the front page of the local paper? Once you click send, you have no control over where they go or what's done with them."
Seems to me that's a better, more effective way of teaching the lesson instead of threatening fire and brimstone and official overreaction.
"At no-point during this story (and yes I've read a couple of other sources) does it mention that the kid is going to be counciled, going to be shown why it's perhaps unhealthy to show your bits."
Erm... what? Since when has it become un-fucking-healthy to be in your natural state? The way we are born? You mean because someone else might see them (your bits)? Fuck off back to planet retard along with all the other twats that are slowly but steadily regressing the world to a puritanical fanatics state...
I'm sure the only reason these charges we're brought against these teens is for the self gratification of those upholding the law. I can imagine the prosecution and the judge getting hairy palms after 'studying the evidence'.
Personlly, I think most sex offenders seem to work in the legal system.
"Places like the USUK can keep their mock morality, sky-high teenage pregnancy rates and obviously pitiful sex-"education" - which leaves teenagers vulnerable in the first place to unwanted pregnancy and disease."
I don't get out much, but I'm pretty sure this is the first time I've come across a self-explanatory acronym "that does exactly what it says on the tin."* USUK describes the hegemony of moral hypocrites and greedy, warmongering, god-bothering fuckwits who have stamped their hallmark on the world for too long.
Steen, you have been nominated for a Nobel prize. For my part, I'm off to Scandinavia.
* UK cultural reference.
"Do they have conker trees in the USA?"
They do and they call them "Horse Chestnuts". We have them north of the border as well.
Being born in the UK and brought up in the traditions of the Olde Sodde I always had lots of funny looks when I called them conkers.
Expecting to see a rise in the use of horse chestnuts here soon.
These authorities went crazy, and nobody stops this nonsence? I hope mind must win at the end. Authorities must pay substantial amount of money to the girl, boy and to their parents to compensate at least partly for ruining their NORMAL lives, breaking personal PRIVACY, wasting lot of personal time, and this money must be regression seeked from those who taken the decisions to disturb the private life of the persons. Nobody forced the girl to send the photos this is the most important, and they were not used for public display or profit but in PRIVATE, PERSONAL communication to the loved one or the friends. If my son or daugter send naked picture to a friend this can be only my family issue (it is the issue of child stupidity because of young age and issue of family education - definitelly talk is needed with parents), but not the authorities at all. According to statistics, the majority of young people start the sexual life in age 14-17. Its legal to be naked for two in the same room, but illegal to send picture via private communication? Nonsense. This even more confirms that strong privacy laws like EU data protection directive is the correct thing. Also, things like that usually happen when there is no serious job. Tax payers shall raise the question that urgent prosecutors headcount reduction is needed in that place where this happened.
From the Newark Advocate (see http://www.newarkadvocate.com/article/20081008/NEWS01/810080302):
"According to Ohio law, 2907.323(A)(3) states anyone possessing material that shows a minor in a state of nudity is guilty of a fifth-degree felony. The violation also might qualify the juvenile as a Tier I sexual offender, which requires annual registration for a decade.
The section of the law the girl, who is a foster child, was charged with allows parents or guardians to take photos of their unclothed children for a list of acceptable purposes but does not provide an exemption for the child themselves."
The article indicates that the law was written as such to ensure that children will take the law seriously.
To me it seems like a very poorly written law. Hopefully the judge will use his discretion to get the girl off. If not there is always (remember this if you ever get stuck with jury duty) the option of jury nullification. The jury *does not* have to follow the jury instructions. The jurors can make up their own mind and mete out their own justice. And it's totally legal to do this (albeit a bit unusual since most jurors are not aware of this). So hopefully if this case ever goes to trial (which would be very ridiculous) justice will prevail (though it seems terribly naive to believe it will)(but honestly, can you imagine that poor [clearly dumb] girl being stuck on the sex offender registry because of this.. it'll ruin her life!]
Still, the fact that this poor [again, clearly dumb] girl is going through this makes me sad for our justice system. I can't see that pretending to be Canadian or moving to Fiji will help the situation much.
since they're going to be SO ridiculous, every single person who sees the photo must now be a paedophile too (actually, apparently that's what they're doing? since the people who received the photo didn't do anything wrong except have a phone which automatically accepted the text?)
So, any and all police, judges etc who see said picture, ought to be convicted and added to the sex offenders register too.
Think about it, if they're saying it's illegal porn, and she's being convicted over child porn, then the police are undeniably viewing child porn. So why is it okay for all these people on the case to see the photos (but not even the 'abused' girl herself)? Thus, all police who have viewed the photo (which is at least one) ought to be charged. Whoever possesses the photo ought to be charged with possession of child porn.
Until they burn the device the photo is on they are still committing the crime of possessing child porn (but apparently that's okay if you're the police..) The police charging themselves actually makes sense due to the way the laws have been made.
This is outrageous because the only thing this kind of BS is going to do is SWEEP CHILD ABUSE UNDER THE RUG.
THERE WILL BE NO MORE CHILD ABUSE!!! Because people will stop reporting it.
They are trying to get people to be deathly afraid of child porn and they have almost completely succeeded. But wait...
Accidentally come across child porn online? You've already broke the law. If you report it, you will get in trouble too. So what will people do? Ignore it.
Get sent a photo text of a nude child or classmate? What will people do? They won't report it, they will not tell anyone. That's just what a child abuse situation needs: extreme fear and secrecy by innocent people instead of reporting the crime!
Your son behaving inappropriately around little girls? Take him to a psychologist? Nope. Pretend it isn't happening because if you report it the child will be taken off you and treated like a fully fledged paedophile, even if they are 7 years old and have never harmed anyone.
Instead of giving these individuals the possibility of help they are too scared to come forward and will lurk in the shadows, possibly going on to actually commit an offence. Meanwhile, people aware of any child abuse will be scared to come forward in case they are charged too!
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019