OMG, I'm glad it wasn't my daughter! A 14 yr. old WTF was she thinking, she thinks very highly of herself to be posting 30 pics. her head must be swelling. Oh, man her parents must be steaming!
-
You must be logged in to see or use the Shoutbox. Besides, if you haven't registered, you really should. It's quick and it will make your life a little better. Trust me. So just register and make yourself at home with like-minded individuals who share either your morbid curiousity or sense of gallows humor.
- Thread starter Sister Iroz
- Start date
OMG, I'm glad it wasn't my daughter! A 14 yr. old WTF was she thinking, she thinks very highly of herself to be posting 30 pics. her head must be swelling. Oh, man her parents must be steaming!
thebooblady
Trusted Member
Umm..how can they charge her with child pornography for posting pictures of herself? I do not believe that was the intention of the law. I think we can all agree it was a stupid thing to do, but this girl should not be labeled a pedophile. Are they going to try to charge all the people who visited her page too??
sanityslipping
Trusted Member
What the hell has our youth come to today?
Shit at 14, I was still confused/insecure about my body, and the things it was doing (or not doing, I was slow to develop boobies)
her parents need to supervise her online activities, and teach her that her body is not a god damn show piece, and is to be respected. Holy fucking hell
Shit at 14, I was still confused/insecure about my body, and the things it was doing (or not doing, I was slow to develop boobies)
her parents need to supervise her online activities, and teach her that her body is not a god damn show piece, and is to be respected. Holy fucking hell
seductress
Well-Known Member
Parents need to keep and eye on what their children are doing on the internet. Kids think this is perfectly ok and that it will get them friends.
I do wonder if she has some self esteem issues. I think most girls do these kind of things because they think they need to get a boyfriend. The parents better watch her very closely, the next step is sexual activity, if she hasn't started that already.
I do wonder if she has some self esteem issues. I think most girls do these kind of things because they think they need to get a boyfriend. The parents better watch her very closely, the next step is sexual activity, if she hasn't started that already.
El Supremo
Well-Known Member
I agree with the charges. Regardless of whether these pictures were produced with her consent or not, she is still distributing nude pictures of a minor, which is illegal. Nobody's labeling her a pedophile, but I think it's clear that the letter of the law has been violated.
Misskittychaos
Trusted Member
I'm on the fence with this one. I think in some ways this could be used as a tool with parents to help their kids understand this isn't acceptable.
But Jesus, what was she thinking at 14 to post buck naked pictures of herself online? It sounds like something my little sister would have done had she had access to the internet.
But Jesus, what was she thinking at 14 to post buck naked pictures of herself online? It sounds like something my little sister would have done had she had access to the internet.
MichaelJCheaney
Trusted Member
They seem to be stretching the intent of the law here.....
I DO NOT think that what the girl did was right. However given the fact that it appears that SHE was the one who posted the pictures, and THAT she was the one who posted them, what exactly is the purpose of prosecuting her?
If there was some adult coercion involved than ABSOLUTELY charge the adult....
But prosecuting a teen and possibly making her register as a lifetime RSO over this seems a little extreme.
But I also say that if your going to charge her then you also be DAMN WELL WILLING to drag EVERY PERSON that looked at and accessed those pictures to the State of NEW JERSEY, and be willing to bear the time, and cost associated with that.
And if that means having to extradite someone from India....then so be it.....
Go all the way or don't waste the taxpayers money!
I DO NOT think that what the girl did was right. However given the fact that it appears that SHE was the one who posted the pictures, and THAT she was the one who posted them, what exactly is the purpose of prosecuting her?
If there was some adult coercion involved than ABSOLUTELY charge the adult....
But prosecuting a teen and possibly making her register as a lifetime RSO over this seems a little extreme.
But I also say that if your going to charge her then you also be DAMN WELL WILLING to drag EVERY PERSON that looked at and accessed those pictures to the State of NEW JERSEY, and be willing to bear the time, and cost associated with that.
And if that means having to extradite someone from India....then so be it.....
Go all the way or don't waste the taxpayers money!
Manfred von Assenhammer
Chain-Smoking Bastard
that's exactly how i feel about that. she shouldn't have done this, but she needs help. she does not need to go to prison or be marked for life as a sex offender over some stupid mistake. she needs more parental supervision and probably some therapy.
child pornography is illegal because it is a visual record of the sexual molestation or exploitation of a minor. how exactly does that fit if she took the pictures herself?
MichaelJCheaney
Trusted Member
Exactly....because the way I define "exploitation" is that there would need to be some kind of adult coercion MAKING her post these pictures against her will. I don't see that here. UNLESS there is more to the story than we know.-which IS a possibility.
malq
Veteran Member
Clearly the law was produced to protect her. How could she be her own victim?
Who had the bumper sticker, you can't fix stupid, well she is punishing herself.
If I masturbate am I molesting a minor if I'm under 18?
Then again if me as an older male posted pics on my space... is it pornagraphy?
Who had the bumper sticker, you can't fix stupid, well she is punishing herself.
If I masturbate am I molesting a minor if I'm under 18?
Then again if me as an older male posted pics on my space... is it pornagraphy?
FlamingFox
Trusted Member
You took the words right out of my mouth. I think the charges are ridiculous. She's 14 for God's sake and the pictures were of her nudity and noone else's. She's stupid, yes, but not a sex offender. The only people she hurt in this situation is her family and herself. A stupid mistake that hopefully sent some giant red flags up and her parents now are giving her their full attention. LE should be spending their time being more concerned with the real sex offenders and less time trying to enforce the law on a 14-year old child that made a very stupid mistake.
She should be charged. It isn't just for her protection...it is for everyone who may have clicked on her pictures, even by accident. If any of her images were to cache on someone elses computer, guess what they are now in possession of.
How would you like for a minor to post their nude pics on the forums, then have that shit cached in your home PC's browser. You work PC's browser? You think your employer, or the police are gonna give a shit that you accidentally got child pornography on your PC? You gonna send her well-wishes as you are sitting in jail?
We bitch and moan about kid gloves on this site all the time...don't see why they should be taken off in this case.
How would you like for a minor to post their nude pics on the forums, then have that shit cached in your home PC's browser. You work PC's browser? You think your employer, or the police are gonna give a shit that you accidentally got child pornography on your PC? You gonna send her well-wishes as you are sitting in jail?
We bitch and moan about kid gloves on this site all the time...don't see why they should be taken off in this case.
Because we aren't thinking about how it would impact us directly. Most people are clueless about caches or how long things stay on their computer. They think if you delete it that's gone forever when that's not the case.
I understand that someone has to be set as an example for the magnitude to hit but it seems like a giant lifelong fucking smack for having some nudes floating around. I am so glad there weren't digital cameras and camera phones when I was young skinny dipping and running around like a jack ass.
Too much emphasis on morals...it's not so much what she did but what some sick fucks do with kiddie porn. Ya know?
El Supremo
Well-Known Member
This is kind of how I'm looking at the situation as well. Exploitation aside, she is knowingly contributing to the existence of kiddie porn, and has technically manufactured and distributed it. That's the law, end of story.
We may not all agree on the specific moral ramifications of this kid's actions, but the point is she violated the law. Whether we agree with those laws and/or their enforcement is an entirely different matter, in my opinion.
malq
Veteran Member
What is that law Elsupremo? the fact she is underage? Is that illegal? Kids text their junk all the time. Send em to jail?
So Morbid, if a 14 year old came on here and posted in the RLD would you prosecute her/him, or just ban for your own protection?
I'm trying to find a way to make a joke out of right click first.. Its not happening.
Harley_Tech
Trusted Member
So you are OK with this child having to register as a sex offender and remain on that list for the rest of her life?
R
Harley_Tech
Trusted Member
Same question, you are OK with her being on a sex offender registry for the rest of her life?
R
Harley_Tech
Trusted Member
How many here ever took pictures of their kids in the bathtub?
I did, I have pics of my daughter sitting nude in the damn toilet. Edit: it has been a pic everyone I've ever shown it to laughed at. It also served as great blackmail over my daughter as she got older.
Also of her sitting nude in the bathtub.
Was I creating child porn?
I know of at least one case where parents were prosecuted for same when a nosy worker at the photo developing place reported this type of child porn.
So now we go to jail for a Kodak moment?
R
I did, I have pics of my daughter sitting nude in the damn toilet. Edit: it has been a pic everyone I've ever shown it to laughed at. It also served as great blackmail over my daughter as she got older.
Also of her sitting nude in the bathtub.
Was I creating child porn?
I know of at least one case where parents were prosecuted for same when a nosy worker at the photo developing place reported this type of child porn.
So now we go to jail for a Kodak moment?
R
Last edited:
I want to know what the additional arrests could be, her friends copying her pics and visiting her page?
Athena
Buzzkill.
"It's the law" is a bit silly. Prosecutors exercise discretion all the time if they think a case that "technically" qualifies for a specific charge is not in line with the spirit of that charge. Inflexibility is a HUGE problem in the U.S. justice system.
In this case, the law was designed to protect the minor in question and to discourage pedophilia. I agree that she should be charged with something, because, as has been mentioned, she put people at risk. But, really, cases like this simply illustrate the need for some evolved legislation. Child pornography charges often automatically warrant RSO status and everything that goes with it. That should clearly not be the case, here. No sense in ruining her life for being a stupid 14 year old - I'm sure she'll be able to handle that just fine herself. But there should be a law - some sort of child porn-lite charge - that reflects the criminal nature of this behavior without treating these kids like sexual predators.
In this case, the law was designed to protect the minor in question and to discourage pedophilia. I agree that she should be charged with something, because, as has been mentioned, she put people at risk. But, really, cases like this simply illustrate the need for some evolved legislation. Child pornography charges often automatically warrant RSO status and everything that goes with it. That should clearly not be the case, here. No sense in ruining her life for being a stupid 14 year old - I'm sure she'll be able to handle that just fine herself. But there should be a law - some sort of child porn-lite charge - that reflects the criminal nature of this behavior without treating these kids like sexual predators.
Athena
Buzzkill.
I did, I have pics of my daughter sitting nude in the damn toilet. Edit: it has been a pic everyone I've ever shown it to laughed at. It also served as great blackmail over my daughter as she got older.
Ha! I've got one just like that! A straight up poleroid from when I was about 2, sitting naked on the toilet with my legs sticking straight out in front of me and an open magazine draped across them. If you look real close, you can see that the title of the article reads "Your Body". I fuckin' LOVE that picture. :tongue2:
Harley_Tech
Trusted Member
Note one difference please
Originally Posted by Harley_Tech
I did, I have pics of my daughter sitting nude in the damn toilet.
R
El Supremo
Well-Known Member
I like this approach, Athena. I think you're right about the fact that she should be charged in some way, and I think your compromise (the "porn-lite" thing) makes a lot of sense. I guess we all do stupid things occasionally.
After thinking about it, I do agree that "the law is the law" is pretty draconian, and in the US, is almost always subject to the discretion and interpretation of prosecutors, judges, and juries, to some extent.
Pete Bondurant
Veteran Member
Uh...where are the photos?:heh:
Last edited:
Pervert
Death Bed
Veteran Member
Morbid made the case that they are doing this protect the public who might have seen her pics by accident. This is an interesting point and could be a problem in some cases, but I don't think that they could be prosecuted for seeing nudity on MySpace, as MySpace prohibits the usage of nudity or violent images. Some people would then have trouble explaining why they were looking at a 14 year old's myspace in this instance but I don't think they could be prosecuted for it, it's Tom's job to make sure all that stuff is cut out.
Rockin Ma
Chauffer specializing in geriatric transport
NJ Statute
2C:24-4 Endangering welfare of children.
2C:24-4. Endangering Welfare of Children.
a.Any person having a legal duty for the care of a child or who has assumed responsibility for the care of a child who engages in sexual conduct which would impair or debauch the morals of the child, or who causes the child harm that would make the child an abused or neglected child as defined in R.S.9:6-1, R.S.9:6-3 and P.L.1974, c.119, s.1 (C.9:6-8.21) is guilty of a crime of the second degree. Any other person who engages in conduct or who causes harm as described in this subsection to a child under the age of 16 is guilty of a crime of the third degree.
b. (1) As used in this subsection:
"Child" means any person under 16 years of age.
"Internet" means the international computer network of both federal and non-federal interoperable packet switched data networks.
"Prohibited sexual act" means
(a)Sexual intercourse; or
(b)Anal intercourse; or
(c)Masturbation; or
(d)Bestiality; or
(e)Sadism; or
(f)Masochism; or
(g)Fellatio; or
(h)Cunnilingus;
(i)Nudity, if depicted for the purpose of sexual stimulation or gratification of any person who may view such depiction; or
(j)Any act of sexual penetration or sexual contact as defined in N.J.S.2C:14-1.
"Reproduction" means, but is not limited to, computer generated images.
(2)(Deleted by amendment, P.L.2001, c.291).
(3)A person commits a crime of the second degree if he causes or permits a child to engage in a prohibited sexual act or in the simulation of such an act if the person knows, has reason to know or intends that the prohibited act may be photographed, filmed, reproduced, or reconstructed in any manner, including on the Internet, or may be part of an exhibition or performance. If the person is a parent, guardian or other person legally charged with the care or custody of the child, the person shall be guilty of a crime of the first degree.
(4)Any person who photographs or films a child in a prohibited sexual act or in the simulation of such an act or who uses any device, including a computer, to reproduce or reconstruct the image of a child in a prohibited sexual act or in the simulation of such an act is guilty of a crime of the second degree.
(5) (a) Any person who knowingly receives for the purpose of selling or who knowingly sells, procures, manufactures, gives, provides, lends, trades, mails, delivers, transfers, publishes, distributes, circulates, disseminates, presents, exhibits, advertises, offers or agrees to offer, through any means, including the Internet, any photograph, film, videotape, computer program or file, video game or any other reproduction or reconstruction which depicts a child engaging in a prohibited sexual act or in the simulation of such an act, is guilty of a crime of the second degree.
(b)Any person who knowingly possesses or knowingly views any photograph, film, videotape, computer program or file, video game or any other reproduction or reconstruction which depicts a child engaging in a prohibited sexual act or in the simulation of such an act, including on the Internet, is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree.
(6)For purposes of this subsection, a person who is depicted as or presents the appearance of being under the age of 16 in any photograph, film, videotape, computer program or file, video game or any other reproduction or reconstruction shall be rebuttably presumed to be under the age of 16. If the child who is depicted as engaging in, or who is caused to engage in, a prohibited sexual act or simulation of a prohibited sexual act is under the age of 16, the actor shall be strictly liable and it shall not be a defense that the actor did not know that the child was under the age of 16, nor shall it be a defense that the actor believed that the child was 16 years of age or older, even if such a mistaken belief was reasonable.
L.1978, c.95; amended 1979, c.178, s.46; 1983, c.494; 1992, c.2; 1992, c.6; 1995, c.109; 1998, c.126; 2001, c.291.
2C:24-4 Endangering welfare of children.
2C:24-4. Endangering Welfare of Children.
a.Any person having a legal duty for the care of a child or who has assumed responsibility for the care of a child who engages in sexual conduct which would impair or debauch the morals of the child, or who causes the child harm that would make the child an abused or neglected child as defined in R.S.9:6-1, R.S.9:6-3 and P.L.1974, c.119, s.1 (C.9:6-8.21) is guilty of a crime of the second degree. Any other person who engages in conduct or who causes harm as described in this subsection to a child under the age of 16 is guilty of a crime of the third degree.
b. (1) As used in this subsection:
"Child" means any person under 16 years of age.
"Internet" means the international computer network of both federal and non-federal interoperable packet switched data networks.
"Prohibited sexual act" means
(a)Sexual intercourse; or
(b)Anal intercourse; or
(c)Masturbation; or
(d)Bestiality; or
(e)Sadism; or
(f)Masochism; or
(g)Fellatio; or
(h)Cunnilingus;
(i)Nudity, if depicted for the purpose of sexual stimulation or gratification of any person who may view such depiction; or
(j)Any act of sexual penetration or sexual contact as defined in N.J.S.2C:14-1.
"Reproduction" means, but is not limited to, computer generated images.
(2)(Deleted by amendment, P.L.2001, c.291).
(3)A person commits a crime of the second degree if he causes or permits a child to engage in a prohibited sexual act or in the simulation of such an act if the person knows, has reason to know or intends that the prohibited act may be photographed, filmed, reproduced, or reconstructed in any manner, including on the Internet, or may be part of an exhibition or performance. If the person is a parent, guardian or other person legally charged with the care or custody of the child, the person shall be guilty of a crime of the first degree.
(4)Any person who photographs or films a child in a prohibited sexual act or in the simulation of such an act or who uses any device, including a computer, to reproduce or reconstruct the image of a child in a prohibited sexual act or in the simulation of such an act is guilty of a crime of the second degree.
(5) (a) Any person who knowingly receives for the purpose of selling or who knowingly sells, procures, manufactures, gives, provides, lends, trades, mails, delivers, transfers, publishes, distributes, circulates, disseminates, presents, exhibits, advertises, offers or agrees to offer, through any means, including the Internet, any photograph, film, videotape, computer program or file, video game or any other reproduction or reconstruction which depicts a child engaging in a prohibited sexual act or in the simulation of such an act, is guilty of a crime of the second degree.
(b)Any person who knowingly possesses or knowingly views any photograph, film, videotape, computer program or file, video game or any other reproduction or reconstruction which depicts a child engaging in a prohibited sexual act or in the simulation of such an act, including on the Internet, is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree.
(6)For purposes of this subsection, a person who is depicted as or presents the appearance of being under the age of 16 in any photograph, film, videotape, computer program or file, video game or any other reproduction or reconstruction shall be rebuttably presumed to be under the age of 16. If the child who is depicted as engaging in, or who is caused to engage in, a prohibited sexual act or simulation of a prohibited sexual act is under the age of 16, the actor shall be strictly liable and it shall not be a defense that the actor did not know that the child was under the age of 16, nor shall it be a defense that the actor believed that the child was 16 years of age or older, even if such a mistaken belief was reasonable.
L.1978, c.95; amended 1979, c.178, s.46; 1983, c.494; 1992, c.2; 1992, c.6; 1995, c.109; 1998, c.126; 2001, c.291.
MichaelJCheaney
Trusted Member
The problem is though that any law changes do ABSOLUTELY nothing to help her IN THIS CASE......since the charges can't be filed retro actively.
So what do you do SPECIFICALLY in THIS case?
