Teen charged...

Kguku · Post by **Kguku** » April 6, 2004, 6:37 pm

with child porn because of posting own nude photos of themself!

http://www.post-gazette.com/breaking/20040329pornp6.asp

Amusing!

Pahreyia · Post by **Pahreyia** » April 6, 2004, 6:53 pm

/incoming wrist slap and sealed juvinile record.

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » April 6, 2004, 8:37 pm

wow ... thats a little fucked up ... so if kid ___ takes nudes of themself .... they have illegal material?

Fesuni Chopsui · Post by **Fesuni Chopsui** » April 6, 2004, 9:27 pm

Drasta wrote:wow ... thats a little fucked up ... so if kid ___ takes nudes of themself .... they have illegal material?

Don't get any ideas now...but if you do, you know my email

Nilaman · Post by **Nilaman** » April 6, 2004, 9:41 pm

I have this picture of me when I was a baby. I was in the sink at my grandmother's house taking a bath.

I am going to prison!

Kriista · Post by **Kriista** » April 6, 2004, 11:47 pm

i can see how this would raise some interesting legal issues

but i guess it all falls down on "ill know it when i see it" type mentality/interpretation

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » April 7, 2004, 12:55 am

i personally think its a load of BS ... i mean come on i have a baby picture of myself in the nude ... is that kiddie porn? what about sonograms(sp?) are they fetus porn video's? and if your refering to wanting to see me fes ... im gross k thx and i don't know your e-mail =-P plus im barely legal

Arundel Pajo · Post by **Arundel Pajo** » April 7, 2004, 8:52 am

I saw this the other day, before they had decided to charge her.

I had a question then, and - after reading this article - I still have it: Does anybody know if she's being tried as an adult?

That would present an interesting paradox, would it not? Her being legally recognized as an adult, yet they would still make the case that she is unable to consent (legally a child). I've gotta admit that though the subject matter sorta makes me cringe, I'm interested in how this will pan out from a legal standpoint.

Deward · Post by **Deward** » April 7, 2004, 10:25 am

This makes my head hurt...

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » April 7, 2004, 10:34 am

Before you get too excited, they can't just be nudes or they're not porn. You can buy "naturist" magazines straight off the rack in newsagents that show nude and semi nude people of all ages. However, none are doing anything that could be construed as "designed to arouse".

Ah.. here we go:

Police said the girl, whose identity they withheld, photographed herself in various states of undress and performing a variety of sexual acts. She then sent the photos to people she met in chat rooms.

Does anyone read the content of this shit before the post about it?

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » April 7, 2004, 10:49 am

She was probably sucking on a banana!

Siji · Post by **Siji** » April 7, 2004, 1:53 pm

Not sure I'd agree with any legal stuff against her just taking the pictures.. but when she passed them out she became guilty of distribution of child pornography. That's a pretty clear case.

Fesuni Chopsui · Post by **Fesuni Chopsui** » April 7, 2004, 1:55 pm

Drasta wrote:i personally think its a load of BS ... i mean come on i have a baby picture of myself in the nude ... is that kiddie porn? what about sonograms(sp?) are they fetus porn video's? and if your refering to wanting to see me fes ... im gross k thx and i don't know your e-mail =-P plus im barely legal

Ack that's right! /runs away! Silly pre-frosh

Niffoni · Post by **Niffoni** » April 7, 2004, 2:43 pm

I guess it's true... Everything's legal if you don't take pictures.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » April 7, 2004, 3:08 pm

Police said the girl, whose identity they withheld, photographed herself in various states of undress and performing a variety of sexual acts. She then sent the photos to people she met in chat rooms.

This is a big difference from a naked baby photo.

She is only 15 and shouldn't be doing that. It so happens they can make an example out of her under the child pornography laws. Good for them. I hope a few girls get scared away from being an internet whore by hearing about this story.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » April 7, 2004, 3:16 pm

I am surprised, I would have thought Midnyte would be all for this since he has to get off somehow.

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » April 7, 2004, 3:17 pm

nah, he probably thinks the girl is black

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » April 7, 2004, 3:46 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:This is a big difference from a naked baby photo.

Hey, thanks a lot for that intelligent observation.

Bojangels · Post by **Bojangels** » April 7, 2004, 6:18 pm

I want to know what they'll do to the people she sent the photos to.

Metaphantasus · Post by **Metaphantasus** » April 7, 2004, 6:37 pm

Zaelath wrote:Before you get too excited, they can't just be nudes or they're not porn. You can buy "naturist" magazines straight off the rack in newsagents that show nude and semi nude people of all ages. However, none are doing anything that could be construed as "designed to arouse".

Ah.. here we go:
Police said the girl, whose identity they withheld, photographed herself in various states of undress and performing a variety of sexual acts. She then sent the photos to people she met in chat rooms.
Does anyone read the content of this shit before the post about it?

Not so. If people at photo places like Wal Mart, Albertsons, Sav Mart, etc develop pictures and they have any frontal nudity of someone under age they have to report it.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » April 7, 2004, 9:15 pm

Metaphantasus wrote:
Zaelath wrote:Before you get too excited, they can't just be nudes or they're not porn. You can buy "naturist" magazines straight off the rack in newsagents that show nude and semi nude people of all ages. However, none are doing anything that could be construed as "designed to arouse".

Ah.. here we go:
Police said the girl, whose identity they withheld, photographed herself in various states of undress and performing a variety of sexual acts. She then sent the photos to people she met in chat rooms.
Does anyone read the content of this shit before the post about it?
Not so. If people at photo places like Wal Mart, Albertsons, Sav Mart, etc develop pictures and they have any frontal nudity of someone under age they have to report it.

There is a lot of mandatory reporting requirements, they don't all result in convictions though. The reason it's mandatory in the first place is a Walmart Photolab Technician isn't qualified to determine the legality of the photos.

Arundel Pajo · Post by **Arundel Pajo** » April 8, 2004, 1:40 am

...she has to be charged as a child, that's the only way I can see it happening.

IANAL (and if anybody is, then feel free to set me straight), but I am under the impression that if they charge her as an adult, then the court legally recognizes her as an adult for the case, effectively reducing "child pornography" in this case to just "pornography." (i.e. a legally recognized adult can not be charged with distribution of child porn for shilling out pictures of him/her<b>self</b>.)

An adult child pornography charge would also require her to register on the sex offender's list for life, which is a pretty big f**king scarlet letter to carry around.

I assume they'll make a big example out of her, but - in order to do so, and also realizing that kids make mistakes - they will try her as a juvenile, and her record will be wiped upon age of majority.

Rivera Bladestrike · Post by **Rivera Bladestrike** » April 10, 2004, 7:51 pm

Yeah, I don't understand how they could try her as an adult when the pictures are child pornography. Its not like 30 years later she was sending them out, she still is that child.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » April 10, 2004, 8:01 pm

Ok, I can pretty much see the dissemination of child pornography charge, but the rest just don't fit when they are your own pics...