Sounds silly
Can a teenager be arrested for child porn for having nudey pics of themselves?
7 Responses to “Sounds silly”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
January 18th, 2010 at 10:24 am
So, a teenager can be considered a sex offender and child pornographer if they have nude or semi-nude pics on a phone, but, if the same teens go into a room together and look at each other, its legal……..
If a teen is in underwear, bad. If a teen is in
dental flossa swim suit, its ok.We Americans are losing our collective minds.
Come on, people! Get it together!
January 18th, 2010 at 3:12 pm
Some interesting thoughts from a former prosecutor of all people, Andrew McCarthy, on National Review’s Corner. Briefly, politicians have been so concerned about being called soft on the issue that they keep raising penalties and setting high bars, to the point that there’s little legal distinction between 17 and 7.
http://tinyurl.com/yb732ca
http://tinyurl.com/yzdg9wv
January 18th, 2010 at 7:06 pm
Criminals can be controlled, therefore, there has to be a way the .gov can make us all criminals.
January 18th, 2010 at 7:18 pm
“In 2008, then Wyoming County District Attorney George Skumanick Jr. threatened to prosecute the girls unless they attended what their lawyers called “re-education” classes and wrote an essay about why sexting is wrong.”
That’s the most chilling part of the whole article. Our criminal justice system is supposed to be about controlling behavior. This is a blatant attempt to control thought.
January 18th, 2010 at 7:39 pm
What Dave said.
An interesting thought experiment is that in many states, it’s perfectly legal for, say, a 30 year old man to have sex with a 16 year old girl who is willing to do so.
He can have any sort of sex with her that they both agree to, as many times as they’re both willing to do so.
But if he takes a picture of her topless, he’s a felon sex offender.
Plainly something is deeply wrong with the law in this area, and with the process of making it.
January 19th, 2010 at 2:59 am
I have no desire to view pictures of nude children, didn’t even when I was a child. Women? Different matter. But I do have to wonder about the state of perversion when someone see something so evil in it under most circumstances. Is it projection of their desires onto others, especially teenagers acting like teenagers have always done? The only difference is when we were teenagers we didn’t have phones that took pictures, Hell, some of us predate Polaroid. But teens have been playing “I’ll show you mine if you show me yours” since oh…….. I don’t know, just forever.
January 19th, 2010 at 8:53 am
This is the point where solid lines in the sand become untenable. Is somebody on their 16th birthday a better driver than when they were 15 years and 364 days old? Of course not, but “we’ve gotta draw the line somewhere” so it’s 16. Same for voting, drinking, and lots of other things.
“Child pornography” however is where this process doesn’t work. I think we all know the difference here. There is a vast difference between a pre-pubescent CHILD and a pubescent adolescent. Sexual behavior among children is not OK; sexual behavior among adolescents is to be expected. The rape laws seem to acknowledge this. The child pornography laws do not.
This extends beyond mere participation and into consumption as well. If a guy’s jerkin’ it to images of 5-year-olds being abused, well I say kill the bastard. But if it’s a dude who’s got some images of 14-year-olds on his computer, then I don’t think that should be a crime. Especially since most of the time he will have no real way of knowing how old the person is anyway. Ages can be tough to guess from a photo, but again I think we all know the visual differences between a pre-pubescent and a post-pubescent individual. If the photos in question show a clearly post-pubescent individual, I don’t think it should be a crime to own/view them.
Also, post or pre, if they’re clothed (all naughty bits covered) I don’t see how anyone can call it pornography. The 12-year-olds in the story might be skirting the line on my definition of where “child” ends and “adolescent” begins, but if they’re clothed, they’re clothed, simple as that.