15-Yr Old Faces Child Porn Charges

By neufuse
in Real World News

 Share

Recommended Posts

Enthusiast

Martin_Hell

Posted
Posted
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.

Grand Master

Yusuf M. Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

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.

Grand Master

+Warwagon MVC

Posted
  • MVC
Posted
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?

Grand Master

jwjw1

Posted
Posted

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

Mentor

ncoday

Posted
Posted
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!!

Grand Master

Rohdekill

Posted
Posted

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.

Mentor

SiCKX

Posted
Posted
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.

Grand Master

Yusuf M. Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
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:

Grand Master

majortom1981

Posted
Posted
$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.

Grand Master

WelshBluebird

Posted
Posted
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".

Grand Master

Green_Eye

Posted
Posted

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?

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.