Teens prosecuted for making "child pornography" of... themselves.
Quote:
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.
Amber and Jeremy were arrested. Each was charged with producing, directing or promoting a photograph featuring the sexual conduct of a child. Based on the contents of his e-mail account, Jeremy was charged with an extra count of possession of child pornography.
So much for child pornography laws "protecting" children(BTW the female is 16 and the male is 17). Under that logic, anyone who masturbated before they where 18, is guilty of child molestation(namely molesting yourself - technically a "child" by law). I know I'm guilty...
I've never heard of this "part throttle" before. Does it just bolt on?
Oh christ.
If what you say about the molestation part is true, then I'm a repeat offender...
We're all going to jail!!!!!!!!!!
wysiwyg wrote:i would say they bang, they don't really pound so much. but if
you want to bump, then they will bump and hit real hard and a lot good. 
LOL
Then im a habitual offender!
Well, all I can say is an acronym that will sum the all up, WTF?
I agree mostly because they didn't show anybody. (and if they didn't show anybody, then how did the police find out?!)
But what if the guy (or girl) releases the video on the web 2 years from now? Is that child pornography? What if they were both 13, and 20 years down the road release it, is it child pornography then?
Seems to walk a fine line between protecting the children and making a law so complicated that it's useless.
---
I think the main reason is child pornography is no joke. They are taking everything seriously. If its from some girl and her boyfriend of just eachother to a 30 year old man getting little girls to pose. I like what someone else said though. If no one else saw it then how did they get caught?
parents could have been looking throught the camera or her email account... you know parents these days...
bastards...
un@!#$believable. i mean how the hell could a court actually decide against the kids? @!#$ ridiculous
CavFire (tabs) aka tabasco wrote:un@!#$believable. i mean how the hell could a court actually decide against the kids? @!#$ ridiculous
Sometimes we have to register our children as sex offenders in order to protect them against pedophiles. Just like sometimes we have to kill them ourselves so they won't be murdered.
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.
Uhhh, I was always unsupervised, I had a digi cam and a few e-mail accounts, about 2 1/2 years and a g/f who was very riske and loved sex and I never took or sent out these kinds of pics . . . Gotta love how the courts blame everything on unsupervison. It also does make you wonder how the police found the pics if they just had them e-mailed. How did they know that those attachments were nude photo's?! Makes you wonder how much other e-mail, attachments, pictures they have access to that you don't know about. Can we say invasion of privacy?? Its not like they were being sold, or had previous suspicion, or were running a backdoor industry out of their house.
AGuSTiN wrote:I agree mostly because they didn't show anybody. (and if they didn't show anybody, then how did the police find out?!)
But what if the guy (or girl) releases the video on the web 2 years from now? Is that child pornography? What if they were both 13, and 20 years down the road release it, is it child pornography then?
Seems to walk a fine line between protecting the children and making a law so complicated that it's useless.
MAGIC lantern,
Carnivore, backweb.
For the instance you asked about, yes it is pornography because the image depicts a child.
I personally think that if it was kept private, this should NOT be an issue. At 16/17, they know what is right and wrong... and they know that they are doing something dangerous if either breaks confidence, but as long as that happens, there should be no worries... HOWEVER they really ought not be doing this silly stuff in the first place.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
In this case, victimless "crime" if there was one there in the first place...
They need to remove the corncob from theis anuses.
Goodbye Callisto & Skaši, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
This case is interesting but retarded, if no one is harmed the were is the crime? The real interesting question is, if you take a picture of yourself, why does anyone have the right to tell you what to do with it if your not showing it to everyone? As AGuSTiN stated, what if they shared the pictures later, when they were adults? For more examples of "victimless crime" see prostitution, drug use, incest and "virtual child pornography". Should we legislate morality? You be the judge.
________________________
Ron Paul in 2008!
Constitution > Politics
