15-Yr Old Faces Child Porn Charges

[Martin_Hell]

Both.

I think in the UK its:

If a underage Male has sexual relations with an underage Female.. the Underage Male (Note: Regardless of age difference, the Male is still charged if they are both underage.)

If a underage Male has sexual relations with an underage Male.. The oldest Male is charged.

If a underage Female has sexual relations with an underage Female.. Who knows, dont think there has been a case yet.

Isn't that stupid? I can't see why the male is the only one who should be charged?:s It doesn't make sense to me.

Anyway I'm sure the humiliation would be an enough punishment for this girl. Also I think she should talk to some adult about this. I'm guessing that there is a lot of girls and boys that do this nowadays and someone needs to tell them it's wrong.

[Yusuf M. Veteran]

A young girl's life is ruined because of an absurd legal system. Honestly, are those prosecutors just in it for the money? The people who unknowingly received the images should sue the prosecutors if they indeed charge them.

[Lasker]

I want to know the intellectual coefficient of the prosecutors or the judge who condemned her for child porn charges. Most stupid news I ever see :blink:, not wonder why Americans choice George Bush for president :laugh:

[+Warwagon MVC]

I can understand if the people she sent the messages to were charged over Child pornography, but when the child itself took the pictures, I don't know, doesn't seem right? :s

Why would they be charged if she just sent them to them without them asking for them?

[Septimus]

Retarded. Common sense during the application of laws has seemingly gone awry in USA.

[Sethos]

Would it be illegal if I took some nude pictures of myself age 8 and started rubbing off to them at age 21?

[Mr. Gibs]

Would it be illegal if I took some nude pictures of myself age 8 and started rubbing off to them at age 21?

THat would be quite creepy =|

Sure you don't want to rephrase?

[jwjw1]

thats fine if this 15yr girl thinks it 'cool' to send her nude photo...she'll be adding to this story soon.

Teen recounts horror of abduction into sex slavery

Shauna Newell is remarkably composed as she describes being kidnapped, drugged, gang-raped and savagely beaten.

A typical 16-year-old in a middle-class home in suburban Pensacola, Fla., Newell?s nightmare began innocently enough:

Newell said that her captor told her she had been sold on the Internet for $300,000 to a man in Texas. Fortunately, she was rescued before delivery could be made.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27098993

[ncoday]

A prosecutor says Licking County authorities also considering charges for students who received the photos.

This is the biggest load of crap. She could have sent them to anyone without their knowledge nor consent, and because of that, those people could face charges? This is way out of control!!

[JonathanVP]

Licking County! LOL...wonder what goes on there!

[Rohdekill]

I, for one, believe she was charged accordingly. Cell phones (just like the post office) is federally regulated and controlled. If you are stupid enough to send illegal material through either, you deserve the charge.

Who saw it, who it was sent to and who sent it is irrelevant. It's the material passing through a controlled and regulated means which generated the charges.

[SiCKX]

The article mentions nudity but not sexually explicit conduct. Child pornography charges must show that the production of the photos involved a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct or that the visual depiction itself shows such conduct. (US Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 110, Section 2252.) If no sexually explicit conduct was involved, the child pornography charges won't stick. As far as I know, no laws exist to forbid the photographing of a nude minor in a nonsexual context. (Naturist families can legally take photos of their naturist children, for example.) They might be able to charge her with distributing the photographs to other minors, though.

I see you know the law pretty well.You are either FBI or have been charged before. :D

Seriously,the dudes (aka cops) are doing it wrong.It is abuse on their part.

[robsleezy]

Speechless

[Yusuf M. Veteran]

I, for one, believe she was charged accordingly. Cell phones (just like the post office) is federally regulated and controlled. If you are stupid enough to send illegal material through either, you deserve the charge.

Who saw it, who it was sent to and who sent it is irrelevant. It's the material passing through a controlled and regulated means which generated the charges.

$50 says you wouldn't believe that if your sister or daughter was the one being charged. :rolleyes:

[Arkaic]

These laws go too far sometimes.

+1

[robsleezy]

Im going with the guy betting the 50 bucks lol.

[majortom1981]

$50 says you wouldn't believe that if your sister or daughter was the one being charged. :rolleyes:

If my sis or daughter (my sis is 25 now and i have no daughter) did that i would try to get a plea deal but would feel they were right in charging her.

Sending a nude photo to anybody at that age is just asking to get into trouble.

[DR3AMxCATCHER]

This is so stupid, first off...why the hell would you take naked pictures of yourself (i wouldnt).

Then to send them off..just worst.

[robsleezy]

maybe it was an audition for being a playboy bunny and something went wrong and the picture message ended up in the wrong hands lol.

[Rohdekill]

$50 says you wouldn't believe that if your sister or daughter was the one being charged. :rolleyes:

Then I'd win $50. I don't change my standards depending on who it is.

[WelshBluebird]

Both.

I think in the UK its:

If a underage Male has sexual relations with an underage Female.. the Underage Male (Note: Regardless of age difference, the Male is still charged if they are both underage.)

If a underage Male has sexual relations with an underage Male.. The oldest Male is charged.

If a underage Female has sexual relations with an underage Female.. Who knows, dont think there has been a case yet.

actually, I'm pretty sure there is no age of consent for lesbian sex. So thats irrelevant.

But AFAIK, the other bits are correct. It is 100% true that the male will be prosecuted if he has sex with the girl. Absolutely stupid, but as the saying goes, "the law is an ass".

[jwjw1]

Speechless

[Skyfrog]

There's another story like this in the news right now, except it's a 13 year old girl sending pics to her 8th grade class. The really stupid thing is that she isn't being charged (yet) but the boys all are. So idiotic.

[Green_Eye]

Where I live a 16 year old girl had sex with a 15 year old boy in a public place and it was recorded by the boys mates (with both of their consent) and is now channeling through every teenagers phone within a 100 miles.

Needless to say both of them got the **** beaten out of them and now police want to have a word.

What is going through the heads of our younger generations?

[fix-this!]

this is just a classic case of an overzealous prosecutor and she will loose in the end. i hope the girl and the family sues the county.

nice :woot:

i always say look but don't touch.