If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WAVY Virginia)   Disgusting child pornographer caught and charged for tweeting nude pictures of innocent 16-year-old girl   (wavy.com) divider line 157
    More: Interesting, innocent, child pornography, Department of Veterans Affairs, County Police  
•       •       •

18277 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Feb 2014 at 9:14 AM (33 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



157 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-02-08 08:53:04 AM
This is bullshiat. It dilutes the meaning of a sex crime conviction, much like tarring someone for life over public urination.
 
2014-02-08 08:55:43 AM
Posting a porno pic of a child can ruin their lives and do irreperable harm to them, so if they do it, we'll send them to jail and make them register as a sex offender for the rest of their lives.
 
2014-02-08 09:01:59 AM
It won't be long before today's sexting teens will be tomorrows lawyers and lawmakers. It's just a transitional period, much like when blacks were first allowed to ride in the front of the bus.
 
2014-02-08 09:16:52 AM
I knew what the punchline would be before I clicked.
 
2014-02-08 09:17:09 AM
Dumbass tag busy holding the camera?
 
2014-02-08 09:19:04 AM
tooold.jpg
 
2014-02-08 09:22:00 AM
"A school resource officer was notified, and spoke with the teen and her mother. "

The schools have officially gone full retard.  WTF?
 
2014-02-08 09:25:20 AM

AngryDragon: "A school resource officer was notified, and spoke with the teen and her mother. "

The schools have officially gone full retard.  WTF?


Not just the schools, the idiot who decided they needed to notify the school resource officer is also retarded.  Just rub one out, talk behind her back, and call it a day.  That's the end of it.
 
2014-02-08 09:26:45 AM
Ten to one, the DA quietly drops the charges.
 
2014-02-08 09:27:14 AM
TTIUWO--

oh, look at that chair over there. B'lieve I'll have a seat.

/I keed, I keed
 
2014-02-08 09:28:49 AM

jaylectricity: It won't be long before today's sexting teens will be tomorrows lawyers and lawmakers. It's just a transitional period, much like when blacks were first allowed to ride in the front of the bus.


Except they won't be allowed into law school due to their prior convictions.
 
2014-02-08 09:29:25 AM

oukewldave: AngryDragon: "A school resource officer was notified, and spoke with the teen and her mother. "

The schools have officially gone full retard.  WTF?

Not just the schools, the idiot who decided they needed to notify the school resource officer is also retarded.  Just rub one out, talk behind her back, and call it a day.  That's the end of it.


The idiot was probably another girl, who either previously had a grudge or was jealous of the attention.

/she still might've rubbed one out, if that helps
 
2014-02-08 09:30:09 AM
Why shouldn't she be branded for life, having to register every move with the authorities, just because she made a stupid decision as a teenager? I mean, you guys are acting like that is a disproportionate response to her actions, or something.
 
2014-02-08 09:30:25 AM

wildcardjack: jaylectricity: It won't be long before today's sexting teens will be tomorrows lawyers and lawmakers. It's just a transitional period, much like when blacks were first allowed to ride in the front of the bus.

Except they won't be allowed into law school due to their prior convictions.


OH WELL.
 
2014-02-08 09:31:32 AM
I just can't feel sorry for people that send anyone and their mother nude pics on purpose or by mistake.
 
2014-02-08 09:32:21 AM

wildcardjack: jaylectricity: It won't be long before today's sexting teens will be tomorrows lawyers and lawmakers. It's just a transitional period, much like when blacks were first allowed to ride in the front of the bus.

Except they won't be allowed into law school due to their prior convictions.


lol
 
2014-02-08 09:32:52 AM
It's quite the legal system where one person can be both the perpetrator and the victim.
 
2014-02-08 09:33:06 AM

Some Coke Drinking Guy: Ten to one, the DA quietly drops the charges.


If there was a way to take you up on the bet, I would, I bet they still bring her up on charges just to they can offer her a plea where she does something equivalent to community service and has probation for up to a year. But no jail time. This way it makes the DA look tough on any type of supposed crime.
 
2014-02-08 09:33:25 AM

jaylectricity: It won't be long before today's sexting teens will be tomorrows lawyers and lawmakers. It's just a transitional period, much like when blacks were first allowed to ride in the front of the bus.


Because now blacks are driving the buses?
 
2014-02-08 09:37:45 AM

Prey4reign: jaylectricity: It won't be long before today's sexting teens will be tomorrows lawyers and lawmakers. It's just a transitional period, much like when blacks were first allowed to ride in the front of the bus.

Because now blacks are driving the buses?


They are at Greyhound... dishing out the racism none of them experienced in the 1800s
 
2014-02-08 09:38:10 AM
newsbusters.org
 
2014-02-08 09:38:17 AM

Prey4reign: jaylectricity: It won't be long before today's sexting teens will be tomorrows lawyers and lawmakers. It's just a transitional period, much like when blacks were first allowed to ride in the front of the bus.

Because now blacks are driving the buses?


Can't get any further to the front than that.
 
2014-02-08 09:39:34 AM
How can we make an informed decision on this matter without the pictures.  I don't think I have to "sit over there", I'm asking, "How could this have happened?", and I need to know what "this" was.  And compare it to some other "this'es" I happen to have.  What do mean, "You're bringing the chair to me"?
 
2014-02-08 09:40:27 AM

drjekel_mrhyde: I just can't feel sorry for people that send anyone and their mother nude pics on purpose or by mistake.


Don't judge me.
 
2014-02-08 09:40:37 AM
I am going to need to see these so called "pics"... you know, for investigative purposes... or it didn't happen.
 
2014-02-08 09:44:07 AM
This is a perfect situation for them to make what I consider to be the bullshiat legal Daily Double.

Let us see if they:
A) do decide to prosecute her for child pornography and
B) decide to try her as an adult.

That would just make my farking year, and it is only February.
 
2014-02-08 09:44:30 AM
When I was a kid and we weren't busy entertaining ourselves by pushing a barrel hoop down the dirt road with a stick, a child had to would work hard to cull suitors to sate our illegal and disgusting perversions.

Toiling away for weeks on end to create and distribute tasteful intaglio etching prints and illuminated manuscripts detailing the delights of our prepubescent knobbery.  There was true artistry involved.  I personally studied under a guy who claimed to be Leonardo Da Vinci, but his techniques, which involved weeks upon end of oiled-up massage followed by months of the "say anything to anyone and your dog dies" game, left me dubious as to his actual artistic ability.  Though I must say his tutelage added a certain rueful, psychotically terrorized quality to my work, which gave it psychological depth.

Finally after creating our masterworks, we could trudge miles in the snow and sleet to area villages where we could distribute these to the Local Pedophile Council, The League of Sketchy Summer Camp Counselors, The Brotherhood of The Travelling Candy Cart, and the Guild of Touchy Uncles.

*sigh*  It was a simpler, more innocent time.
 
2014-02-08 09:44:40 AM

Maul555: I am going to need to see these so called "pics"... you know, for investigative purposes... or it didn't happen.


You weren't on her distribution list?  Man, I thought everyone was!
 
2014-02-08 09:45:18 AM
Police  say the teen crossed the line of sexting to child porn because of the lewdness of the photos.

So she's a dirty, dirty girl . . .

So what?

/adults over-reacted like the asshats they usually are.
 
2014-02-08 09:45:24 AM
So nudity = pornography and a 16-year-old is a "child"? Really?

We've really gone overboard on this sh*t. Jesus. . . .
 
2014-02-08 09:48:26 AM
Two words: Megan's law.
 
2014-02-08 09:55:57 AM
Kids these days have it too easy.  I remember when I first talked a girl into showing me her boobs.  There wasn't any of this picture horseshiat.  You had to find a place you could be alone together and then you really had to step up your game.  We were in my high school's boiler room - 110 degrees, dead cockroaches and cigarette butts from the janitor everywhere, and the janitor's porn collection.  It was so romantic.
 
2014-02-08 09:57:20 AM

generallyso: It's quite the legal system where one person can be both the perpetrator and the victim.


That's how drug laws work.
 
2014-02-08 09:59:03 AM

untaken_name: generallyso: It's quite the legal system where one person can be both the perpetrator and the victim.

That's how drug laws work.


I imagine you have quite the cupie doll collection.
 
2014-02-08 10:02:10 AM

megarian: drjekel_mrhyde: I just can't feel sorry for people that send anyone and their mother nude pics on purpose or by mistake.

Don't judge me.


Strangely enough, that line doesn't work on judges.
 
2014-02-08 10:03:54 AM
"Parents may also be surprised to know investigators say they are seeing a surge in these types of cases because teens see it as harmless sexting."


Wow! These people really don't get around.

/snapchat
 
2014-02-08 10:03:56 AM

markfara: So nudity = pornography and a 16-year-old is a "child"? Really?

We've really gone overboard on this sh*t. Jesus. . . .


She HAS to be prosecuted though.  You know, For The ChildrenTM!

.....wait.....
 
2014-02-08 10:04:45 AM
FTFA: "...in the juvenile system this young woman and her parents could be ordered to complete a Sexting Education program. But there's also the chance this could end up in court as a criminal matter with jail time as a possibility."

I don't even know where to start. Our sex offender laws are so messed up. A teen makes a bad choice, which could bring unwanted attention and possibly harm to her and our system will make sure she's punished for it, really?
"Sexting" should never have been added to the dictionary.
Are the cops going to track down everyone who received the photo, even if unsolicited, and charge them with possession of child pornography? Will they and their parents have to complete a Sexting Education program?
 
2014-02-08 10:10:37 AM
Another perfect example of the relative minor "violation" used to nuke someone's life.
Christian Taliban at work, terrorizing and farking the very children you bear, "for their own good".

Yea, for their own good.
 
2014-02-08 10:10:56 AM

rwhamann: This is bullshiat. It dilutes the meaning of a sex crime conviction, much like tarring someone for life over public urination.


EVERYBODY LOOK AT THIS SICK PERSON, DEFENDING CHILD PORNOGRAPHY AND PUBLIC EXPOSURE.
 
2014-02-08 10:13:20 AM
I just want someone to do this to Justin Bieber. You know he has nude selfies from when he was 16 on a computer or cell phone of some sort in his possession. THAT would be enough to deport him and get him banned from entering most countries.
 
2014-02-08 10:13:51 AM
Back in the day we'd just take away her phone and ground her for a week or two. Sheesh.
 
2014-02-08 10:14:04 AM

geek_mars: FTFA: "...in the juvenile system this young woman and her parents could be ordered to complete a Sexting Education program. But there's also the chance this could end up in court as a criminal matter with jail time as a possibility."

I don't even know where to start. Our sex offender laws are so messed up. A teen makes a bad choice, which could bring unwanted attention and possibly harm to her and our system will make sure she's punished for it, really?
"Sexting" should never have been added to the dictionary.
Are the cops going to track down everyone who received the photo, even if unsolicited, and charge them with possession of child pornography? Will they and their parents have to complete a Sexting Education program?


Yes, but that is minor compared to the other repercussions.

Sexting, underage, is illegal.
Only criminals underage sext.

/think of the children
'cause I don't want you blaming me when they revolt
 
2014-02-08 10:14:07 AM
Nudity is not pornography.
 
2014-02-08 10:15:01 AM
i.telegraph.co.uk

Hai Guyz!
 
2014-02-08 10:15:58 AM

markfara: So nudity = pornography and a 16-year-old is a "child"? Really?

We've really gone overboard on this sh*t. Jesus. . . .


She's only a child when she is the victim.

When she's the perpetrator, she's an adult.

This is how she can be doth the victim and the accused.

Also, because our legal system is as broken as any third world shiathole's, and we refuse to admit it.
 
2014-02-08 10:16:50 AM

Lsherm: Kids these days have it too easy.  I remember when I first talked a girl into showing me her boobs.  There wasn't any of this picture horseshiat.  You had to find a place you could be alone together and then you really had to step up your game.  We were in my high school's boiler room - 110 degrees, dead cockroaches and cigarette butts from the janitor everywhere, and the janitor's porn collection.  It was so romantic.


High School? Poor you.
I have this friend, and he started before the girls really had boobs.

Should he not have done that?
 
2014-02-08 10:17:22 AM
And I doth misspell words sometimes.
 
2014-02-08 10:17:53 AM

yakmans_dad: Nudity is not pornography.


Sez you, Denier!
 
2014-02-08 10:19:29 AM

yakmans_dad: Nudity is not pornography.


ANOTHER SICKO DEFENDING CHILD PORN.

If nudity isn't pornography, why do they cover up dongs in art with fig leaves, hmm?

Of course nudity is pornography!
 
2014-02-08 10:20:56 AM

geek_mars: Are the cops going to track down everyone who received the photo, even if unsolicited, and charge them with possession of child pornography?


They will try their hardest.
 
2014-02-08 10:20:59 AM

max_pooper: Prey4reign: jaylectricity: It won't be long before today's sexting teens will be tomorrows lawyers and lawmakers. It's just a transitional period, much like when blacks were first allowed to ride in the front of the bus.

Because now blacks are driving the buses?

Can't get any further to the front than that.


Oh yes you can.  Probably a black bus driver.
 
2014-02-08 10:22:04 AM

yakmans_dad: Nudity is not pornography.


I suggest you let the police know of your collection and see what they say about it.
 
2014-02-08 10:22:21 AM
"I don't think she should be charged with child pornography, because she is a child herself, but if she was 18 or older of course," said parent Emily Altman.

But if she was 18 or older of course, what? It wouldn't be child pornography then, would it?
 
2014-02-08 10:23:39 AM
So...what's her twitter handle?
 
2014-02-08 10:24:47 AM

dangelder: "I don't think she should be charged with child pornography, because she is a child herself, but if she was 18 or older of course," said parent Emily Altman.

But if she was 18 or older of course, what? It wouldn't be child pornography then, would it?


What if her photos were two years old?
 
2014-02-08 10:26:34 AM

sendtodave: dangelder: "I don't think she should be charged with child pornography, because she is a child herself, but if she was 18 or older of course," said parent Emily Altman.

But if she was 18 or older of course, what? It wouldn't be child pornography then, would it?

What if her photos were two years old?


Then she is well and truly farked.
 
2014-02-08 10:27:17 AM

MechaPyx: Back in the day we'd just take away her phone and ground her for a week or two. Sheesh.



www.lostrepublic.us
 
2014-02-08 10:29:46 AM

MechaPyx: sendtodave: dangelder: "I don't think she should be charged with child pornography, because she is a child herself, but if she was 18 or older of course," said parent Emily Altman.

But if she was 18 or older of course, what? It wouldn't be child pornography then, would it?

What if her photos were two years old?

Then she is well and truly farked.


Yep.

Interesting, though, that a person doesn't have the right to show their own body.  I guess they don't really own it until they are 18.
 
2014-02-08 10:29:59 AM

dangelder: "I don't think she should be charged with child pornography, because she is a child herself, but if she was 18 or older of course," said parent Emily Altman.

But if she was 18 or older of course, what? It wouldn't be child pornography then, would it?


Holy fark.  Some retard really said that?  And allowed herself to be attributed for it?
 
2014-02-08 10:31:59 AM

Lsherm: Kids these days have it too easy.  I remember when I first talked a girl into showing me her boobs.  There wasn't any of this picture horseshiat.  You had to find a place you could be alone together and then you really had to step up your game.  We were in my high school's boiler room - 110 degrees, dead cockroaches and cigarette butts from the janitor everywhere, and the janitor's porn collection.  It was so romantic.


Freddy?
 
2014-02-08 10:32:45 AM
Anyway, is there any place that doesn't have totally arbitrary laws, based on moral panic or otherwise?

If I have to deal with them regardless, I might as well move (back) to somewhere where I can bride the cops.
 
2014-02-08 10:33:24 AM
She is not a criminal, she's just a naughty girl.  A very very naughty girl.  Who needs to be administered a good spanking.
 
2014-02-08 10:33:47 AM

wambu: Police  say the teen crossed the line of sexting to child porn because of the lewdness of the photos.


So she's a dirty, dirty girl

3.bp.blogspot.com

"Yes she is... Yes she is."
 
2014-02-08 10:34:22 AM

markfara: So nudity = pornography and a 16-year-old is a "child"? Really?

We've really gone overboard on this sh*t. jesus. . . .


likes to  watch you masturbate but says being necked is wrong
 
2014-02-08 10:36:25 AM

generallyso: It's quite the legal system where one person can be both the perpetrator and the victim.


And being that the state is required to provide victim services it really gets tricky there.. How does one comply with the court order to stay away from ones self..
 
2014-02-08 10:38:39 AM

sendtodave: Anyway, is there any place that doesn't have totally arbitrary laws, based on moral panic or otherwise?

If I have to deal with them regardless, I might as well move (back) to somewhere where I can bride the cops.


Not sure making them your bride will help.  Unless you like domestic abuse with nothing being done about it because of blue line...
 
2014-02-08 10:42:35 AM
Gah, I made the same type doth types!

I need to brink some coffee.
 
2014-02-08 10:42:59 AM

sendtodave: MechaPyx: sendtodave: dangelder: "I don't think she should be charged with child pornography, because she is a child herself, but if she was 18 or older of course," said parent Emily Altman.

But if she was 18 or older of course, what? It wouldn't be child pornography then, would it?

What if her photos were two years old?

Then she is well and truly farked.

Yep.

Interesting, though, that a person doesn't have the right to show their own body.  I guess they don't really own it until they are 18.


Unless there is a draft.
 
2014-02-08 10:47:56 AM
surely the best interest of this girl are in mind by exploding this to the level where her photos are layed out in a courtroom for her and everyone else. thats healthy
 
2014-02-08 10:56:10 AM
From Wikipedia:

"The age of consent in Virginia is 18, with a close-in-age exception that allows teenagers aged 15 to 17 to engage in sexual acts but only with a partner younger than 18."

So she is old enough to masturbate, barely.
 
2014-02-08 10:56:42 AM

vygramul: yakmans_dad: Nudity is not pornography.

I suggest you let the police know of your collection and see what they say about it.


There really seems to be a confusion here beyond the usual facetiousness.

Pornography demands the depiction of a sexual act. The body isn't pornographic.

(And breast feeding isn't  a sexual act. To nip that in the bud, so to speak, since that tangent is often mentioned.)
 
2014-02-08 10:57:21 AM

MechaPyx: sendtodave: dangelder: "I don't think she should be charged with child pornography, because she is a child herself, but if she was 18 or older of course," said parent Emily Altman.

But if she was 18 or older of course, what? It wouldn't be child pornography then, would it?

What if her photos were two years old?

Then she is well and truly farked.


Yep - in fact, I believe it's happened where an adult had naked pictures of themselves and hadn't even distributed them.
 
2014-02-08 11:02:14 AM

yakmans_dad: vygramul: yakmans_dad: Nudity is not pornography.

I suggest you let the police know of your collection and see what they say about it.

There really seems to be a confusion here beyond the usual facetiousness.

Pornography demands the depiction of a sexual act. The body isn't pornographic.

(And breast feeding isn't  a sexual act. To nip that in the bud, so to speak, since that tangent is often mentioned.)


Like I said - feel free to test the system. *Parents* have lost custody of children for a month while untangling the legal hassles from having bathtub pics of their kids. If you were a stranger to the kids, I wouldn't want money riding on your staying out of jail.
 
2014-02-08 11:02:37 AM

Lsherm: Kids these days have it too easy.  I remember when I first talked a girl into showing me her boobs.  There wasn't any of this picture horseshiat.  You had to find a place you could be alone together and then you really had to step up your game.  We were in my high school's boiler room - 110 degrees, dead cockroaches and cigarette butts from the janitor everywhere, and the janitor's porn collection.  It was so romantic.


Man, I really miss the 70's.
 
2014-02-08 11:03:57 AM

MechaPyx: Back in the day we'd just take away her phone and ground her for a week or two. Sheesh.


that's a relatively recent "back in the day" - you do realize that most farkers didn't have cell phones at that age, because...in 1995, only 1 in 10 people had a cell phone, and those people were business people (typically) who were paying out the ass for it?  And a 16yo in 1995 would only be 34 now.

"back in the day" indeed.

//harumph
//get off my lawn!
 
2014-02-08 11:06:01 AM
What happens if she had used her head shot and photo shopped it with someone else's nude body who was over 18 yo?
 
2014-02-08 11:06:50 AM

wildcardjack: I just want someone to do this to Justin Bieber. You know he has nude selfies from when he was 16 on a computer or cell phone of some sort in his possession. THAT would be enough to deport him and get him banned from entering most countries.


Sadly the Canadians have stated that much like Rafael "Ted" Cruz, they don't want him back either.
 
2014-02-08 11:07:09 AM

IamAwake: MechaPyx: Back in the day we'd just take away her phone and ground her for a week or two. Sheesh.

that's a relatively recent "back in the day" - you do realize that most farkers didn't have cell phones at that age, because...in 1995, only 1 in 10 people had a cell phone, and those people were business people (typically) who were paying out the ass for it?  And a 16yo in 1995 would only be 34 now.

"back in the day" indeed.

//harumph
//get off my lawn!


Yeah yeah. Back in the day we'd take her polaroid camera away instead of a cell phone.
 
2014-02-08 11:07:28 AM

yakmans_dad: vygramul: yakmans_dad: Nudity is not pornography.

I suggest you let the police know of your collection and see what they say about it.

There really seems to be a confusion here beyond the usual facetiousness.

Pornography demands the depiction of a sexual act. The body isn't pornographic.

(And breast feeding isn't  a sexual act. To nip that in the bud, so to speak, since that tangent is often mentioned.)


OK.  And good luck with that defense in court.

And they will still bring you up in possession of child porn, even if the children were only nude, and not doing anything sexual.  Because they can.

Just like they will bring you up on lewdity charges if you are walking around your house naked with the windows open, and some kid sees your dong.  Because they can.

Your limp dong is porn.

There are enough prosecutors and enough judges out there that would say any nudity is porn.  And enough of the general population agrees.
 
2014-02-08 11:07:52 AM
Burn her!
 
2014-02-08 11:08:23 AM
That'll teach her to show off her raisins!
 
2014-02-08 11:08:50 AM

oukewldave: AngryDragon: "A school resource officer was notified, and spoke with the teen and her mother. "

The schools have officially gone full retard.  WTF?

Not just the schools, the idiot who decided they needed to notify the school resource officer is also retarded.  Just rub one out, talk behind her back, and call it a day.  That's the end of it.


She was probably ugly, that is why they notified the school resource officer.
 
2014-02-08 11:10:24 AM

TeddyRooseveltsMustache: That'll teach her to show off her raisins!


Raisins are nice. I'm more of a marshmallow man my damn self.
 
2014-02-08 11:10:36 AM
We need to see the pictures in order to determine if they were actually pornographic.
 
2014-02-08 11:11:25 AM
There is no better way of teaching young women about responsibility and modesty than to make the register as a sex offender for the rest of their lives, and take away their ability to be around children.
 
2014-02-08 11:11:31 AM

vygramul: yakmans_dad: vygramul: yakmans_dad: Nudity is not pornography.

I suggest you let the police know of your collection and see what they say about it.

There really seems to be a confusion here beyond the usual facetiousness.

Pornography demands the depiction of a sexual act. The body isn't pornographic.

(And breast feeding isn't  a sexual act. To nip that in the bud, so to speak, since that tangent is often mentioned.)

Like I said - feel free to test the system. *Parents* have lost custody of children for a month while untangling the legal hassles from having bathtub pics of their kids. If you were a stranger to the kids, I wouldn't want money riding on your staying out of jail.



I didn't believe you but a cursory Google search says that you don't want to mess with Texas. (Alhough the dates of the articles are from 2008 and 2009. Things may have changed.) But, to be fair to Texas, that prosecutor seems to be the Texas equivalent to Sherriff Joe.

So, I will amend my statement with an implicit Texas footnote. I just imagine a map where the edge of the known world is the Texas border and in the white space beyond that in 17th century script, "Here Be Assholes".
 
2014-02-08 11:13:19 AM
The great thing about scaring the shiat out of teens is that you really don't have to do it all that long - just long enough to amplify their natural reticence until they're eighteen years old and one day, when they can stop being "precious little snowflakes" and can be held to economic pain and moral slander like everyone else.   

/The best part of being a teen was all the free sex.
// When everyone got a job, lots of that just went away.
 
2014-02-08 11:15:50 AM

Alphakronik: There is no better way of teaching young women about responsibility and modesty than to make the register as a sex offender for the rest of their lives, and take away their ability to be around children.


What happens if a female sex offender gets pregnant and has a child?  Isn't that like dividing by zero?
 
2014-02-08 11:17:05 AM

AngryDragon: Alphakronik: There is no better way of teaching young women about responsibility and modesty than to make the register as a sex offender for the rest of their lives, and take away their ability to be around children.

What happens if a female sex offender gets pregnant and has a child?  Isn't that like dividing by zero?


I'm guessing that she gets to keep it until it is born.
 
2014-02-08 11:18:01 AM

jaylectricity: It won't be long before today's sexting teens will be tomorrows lawyers and lawmakers. It's just a transitional period, much like when blacks were first allowed to ride in the front of the bus.


"The Internet is evil" is basically "video games are evil" 20 years ago and "heavy metal is evil" 30 years ago.

People who are in the generation using those things say "meh".
 
2014-02-08 11:18:05 AM

sendtodave: MechaPyx: sendtodave: dangelder: "I don't think she should be charged with child pornography, because she is a child herself, but if she was 18 or older of course," said parent Emily Altman.

But if she was 18 or older of course, what? It wouldn't be child pornography then, would it?

What if her photos were two years old?

Then she is well and truly farked.

Yep.

Interesting, though, that a person doesn't have the right to show their own body.  I guess they don't really own it until they are 18.




Nudity is evil if the person is under 18.

18 and over, nudity is immoral.

There is a reason the Michelangelo had to paint over all the naked people and cherubs he put on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.
 
2014-02-08 11:18:15 AM
/The best part of being a teen was all the free sex.
// When everyone got a job, lots of that just went away.


I don't think it was jobs. I think it's the realization -- around age 22 or 23 --  that Sex isn't Everything (or even all that much) and do you really want to get intimate with bozos.
 
2014-02-08 11:21:08 AM

farkeruk: jaylectricity: It won't be long before today's sexting teens will be tomorrows lawyers and lawmakers. It's just a transitional period, much like when blacks were first allowed to ride in the front of the bus.

"The Internet is evil" is basically "video games are evil" 20 years ago and "heavy metal is evil" 30 years ago.

People who are in the generation using those things say "meh".


Don't forget "Comic books are evil" from 60 years ago.
 
2014-02-08 11:21:49 AM

TedCruz'sCrazyDad: There is a reason the Michelangelo had to paint over all the naked people and cherubs he put on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.


David would like a word with you.
 
2014-02-08 11:24:40 AM
This case is a good argument for more discretionary laws.  The only problem with those is you must rely on the discretion of the police and the prosecutor.  As with everything you have a few uptight cops who would do it just to punish the 'whore'.  The prosecutor on the other hand doesn't care he just wants that plus on added to his convictions.

/ethics isn't about honesty its about appearances with lawyers.
 
2014-02-08 11:31:02 AM
I remember back in the AOL days there was some website that listed known "sex offenders". It was like a Google map type thing and if you moused over the tag it gave the names and address of the said offender. At the time I lived across the street from a high school. I could not believe there were like 20 within a several mile radius of my house and hundreds throughout the city.. I sat my daughter down (She was 14 or 15 at the time) down and explained that this is why she was to come home right after school and not hang out at the park or Dunkin Doughnuts. It was years later I found out that urinating in public (not on a bus, but behind a tree) got you classified as a sex offender. It's become a farkin witch hunt plain and simple. I wonder how much money the state makes from this shiate.
 
2014-02-08 11:32:04 AM
So we're all agreed, then, we let children drive cars and allow them a chance to hit us and kill us on the roads.

What I'm saying is: Don't give out driver's licenses until people turn 18. :)  I want the "kids" off the road.

This is no joke! I dislike having to share the road with children who should be home playing with Duplo building blocks.

/heh
 
2014-02-08 11:33:19 AM

yakmans_dad: vygramul: yakmans_dad: Nudity is not pornography.

I suggest you let the police know of your collection and see what they say about it.

There really seems to be a confusion here beyond the usual facetiousness.

Pornography demands the depiction of a sexual act. The body isn't pornographic.

(And breast feeding isn't  a sexual act. To nip that in the bud, so to speak, since that tangent is often mentioned.)


Pornography is in the mind of the beholder, same as beauty. A thing is not pornography, only in the mind.
If some money grubbing a$$wipe claiming to KNOW GOD has told/convinced you to hate your body "because god said so", then pornography, pornography everywhere!

pity the fool
 
2014-02-08 11:36:40 AM

The One True TheDavid: From Wikipedia:

"The age of consent in Virginia is 18, with a close-in-age exception that allows teenagers aged 15 to 17 to engage in sexual acts but only with a partner younger than 18."

So she is old enough to masturbate, barely.


BTW, masturbation begins in the womb.
I'd show you the ultrasound, but that is illegal.
 
2014-02-08 11:37:17 AM

The One True TheDavid: From Wikipedia:

"The age of consent in Virginia is 18, with a close-in-age exception that allows teenagers aged 15 to 17 to engage in sexual acts but only with a partner younger than 18."

So she is old enough to masturbate, barely.


Ok, so according to that law, there could be a couple, aged 16 and 17, who could legally have sex. But then, the minute the older one turns 18 it would suddenly be illegal?

Seems like somebody didn't think this all the way through...
 
2014-02-08 11:37:53 AM

rwhamann: This is bullshiat. It dilutes the meaning of a sex crime conviction, much like tarring someone for life over public urination.


GOOD thing that most of the child porn laws are written just as poorly.
Change them or charge her.

WHAT if it were her 15yo boyfriend taking the photos?
Would you want to charge him too?

OUR country is retarded when it comes to teenage sex.
The laws are written by morons who have forgotten that they all had sex when they were teens and would have taken pics if they could have.
 
2014-02-08 11:39:33 AM

ununcle: I remember back in the AOL days there was some website that listed known "sex offenders". It was like a Google map type thing and if you moused over the tag it gave the names and address of the said offender. At the time I lived across the street from a high school. I could not believe there were like 20 within a several mile radius of my house and hundreds throughout the city.. I sat my daughter down (She was 14 or 15 at the time) down and explained that this is why she was to come home right after school and not hang out at the park or Dunkin Doughnuts. It was years later I found out that urinating in public (not on a bus, but behind a tree) got you classified as a sex offender. It's become a farkin witch hunt plain and simple. I wonder how much money the state makes from this shiate.


WORSE
How many lives are ruined by this shiat. Seriously.
Stop calling streaking and public exposure a sex crime.

Didnt some kid get charged recently for mooning a school bus? LOL
SEX CRIME!

/we are so retarded
 
2014-02-08 11:39:49 AM
By all means, let's ruin this dumb kid's life. The punishment is her nekkid self all over the intarwebs.
 
2014-02-08 11:44:02 AM
So actresses who are under 18 years of age can appear naked in a movie (Brooke Shields, Thora Birch, Keira Knightley, Jodie Foster's sister) and as long as it's not sexual in nature (no penetration, oral contact, sexualized touching, etc.) it's perfectly legal and can be distributed nationwide without a single prosecution.

But a 16-year-old takes a naked selfie and suddenly we have to prosecute her to protect her from herself because she's a child pornographer?!  How does this make any sense?

When did we as a nation become so freaked out by naked adolescents? Nudity does not equal sex. There was no sexual assault here. There was no sexual misconduct here. What good is it going to do to treat a girl like a sex offender for something as benign as take a naked picture of herself?

I'm pretty sure NOBODY watched American Beauty and then turned into an ephebophile and ran around victimizing teenage girls because Thora Birch showed the world her breasts.

It's time the laws were changed. Nudity should be decriminalized. If there's no sex, no penetration, no blatant sexual conduct in the photo (touching, spreading, inserting, etc.) then it's just a picture of a human body. It's only sexual if you look upon with sexual desire, and that falls on the viewer; Not the subject or the photographer.

YES, protect adolescents and kids from pornography. Don't let them be the subject of pornographic imagery or video... But nudity is not pornographic.

Now, if the girl posted a photo of herself with a dildo shoved halfway in... Well, then she needs some counseling and probably needs to have her camera and social networking taken away for a while. But if it's just some topless shots? Spare the girl, stop obsessing over nudity, and spend the time and energy to prosecute real predators, like the boys in Steubenville and millions like them across the country.
 
2014-02-08 11:50:55 AM

Nick Nostril: By all means, let's ruin this dumb kid's life. The punishment is her nekkid self all over the intarwebs.


Aww, that is just the beginning.
Most bullies hope the victim will off themselves.

Seriously sick peeps doing this zhit all day long under the guise of "think of the children".
 
m00
2014-02-08 11:54:48 AM

ZeroCorpse: So actresses who are under 18 years of age can appear naked in a movie (Brooke Shields, Thora Birch, Keira Knightley, Jodie Foster's sister) and as long as it's not sexual in nature (no penetration, oral contact, sexualized touching, etc.) it's perfectly legal and can be distributed nationwide without a single prosecution.

But a 16-year-old takes a naked selfie and suddenly we have to prosecute her to protect her from herself because she's a child pornographer?!  How does this make any sense?


Who is going to legally prosecute Hollywood? Underage actresses can probably appear naked in a Hollywood movie even if it's sexual in nature. They can appear in fashion shows and American Eagle catalogs. On the cover of rock albums. Media corporations with very good lawyers on retainer can make stuff that is worse than what's considered child porn for everyone else.

But no DA anywhere in the US is going to bring charges against Hollywood, the fashion industry, advertisement and media conglomerates. The cost to the DA's office to get a win from such a trial would cripple the budget. But some random teen who takes a selfie, yeah that's an easy conviction and +1 to the "tough crime" statistics.
 
2014-02-08 11:56:16 AM

ZeroCorpse: When did we as a nation become so freaked out by naked adolescents?


Where have you been?  We are freaked out by EVERYTHING.

Terrorists, porn, drugs, abortions, guns, gay marriage, big government, small government, pedophile priests, pedophile teachers, vaccines, not getting vaccinated, GMOs, meat-eaters, gluten, peanuts, free trade, tariffs, unions, "right-to-work", privacy, PATRIOT, Gitmo, teen pregnancy, sex education, religion, atheism, the 1%, zero-tolerance, crime, standardized testing, charter schools, home schooling, College tuition costs, not getting a degree, unemployment, HOAs, LGBT people, rednecks, gangbangers, illegal aliens, H1B workers, taxes, reduced government services, cruise ships, H1N1, and the Illuminati.

The 24-hour news cycle and its consolidation into a few hands has screwed up our national character completely.  We get whipped up by a point issue and immediately demand something be done, even if we have no concept of the impact.

It's OK though.  It's All For The ChildrenTM.
 
2014-02-08 11:58:46 AM

yakmans_dad: Nudity is not pornography.


FTA, it says that because of the lewdness of the photos, that it had to be upgraded to pornography from normal sexting.

Not that I'm defending this bullshiat, but I wonder what was so "lewd"? Was it something more than mere nudity?

As someone said in a marijuana thread, if the punishment of the "crime" is orders of magnitude more damaging than the act itself, then the law is insanely unjust.
 
ozo
2014-02-08 12:05:53 PM
Article said the nature of pictures elevated it from normal sexting. She didnt send them to just her bf as they were found on twitter. Just a question, but lets say she is doing this for cash, is on not child porn then? She is stil the victm, but shes also the distributor. No easy way to go about it.

From the article also, it doesnt mention of anyone actually prosecuting her for it only that jail time is possible for child pornography. It says counseling is an option.
 
2014-02-08 12:07:24 PM
"Police  say the teen crossed the line of sexting to child porn because of the lewdness of the photos."

What the hell, legally, does that even mean?  It's either a legal nude or illegal child porn. Are they creating some third, middle level out thin air?
 
2014-02-08 12:08:04 PM

m00: ZeroCorpse: So actresses who are under 18 years of age can appear naked in a movie (Brooke Shields, Thora Birch, Keira Knightley, Jodie Foster's sister) and as long as it's not sexual in nature (no penetration, oral contact, sexualized touching, etc.) it's perfectly legal and can be distributed nationwide without a single prosecution.

But a 16-year-old takes a naked selfie and suddenly we have to prosecute her to protect her from herself because she's a child pornographer?!  How does this make any sense?

Who is going to legally prosecute Hollywood? Underage actresses can probably appear naked in a Hollywood movie even if it's sexual in nature. They can appear in fashion shows and American Eagle catalogs. On the cover of rock albums. Media corporations with very good lawyers on retainer can make stuff that is worse than what's considered child porn for everyone else.

But no DA anywhere in the US is going to bring charges against Hollywood, the fashion industry, advertisement and media conglomerates. The cost to the DA's office to get a win from such a trial would cripple the budget. But some random teen who takes a selfie, yeah that's an easy conviction and +1 to the "tough crime" statistics.


GDISM, it is not illegal when we do it!

And "we" got a license. Bought and paid for from the fools you elected.
HaHa
 
2014-02-08 12:09:29 PM

Cortez the Killer: yakmans_dad: Nudity is not pornography.

FTA, it says that because of the lewdness of the photos, that it had to be upgraded to pornography from normal sexting.

Not that I'm defending this bullshiat, but I wonder what was so "lewd"? Was it something more than mere nudity?

As someone said in a marijuana thread, if the punishment of the "crime" is orders of magnitude more damaging than the act itself, then the law is insanely unjust.


That is entirely the point of bullies writing "laws".
 
2014-02-08 12:12:46 PM
Maybe she is fingering herself in the pics or playing with her tatas, da horror! Yeah, it's pretty obvious they're vaguely threatening her with jail time to get her do the re-education program.

Wasn't there a similar case with some young (pre)teens in their underware and the DA there also tried this and it went through all kinds of courts instances because the parents refused the "counseling"?
 
m00
2014-02-08 12:16:00 PM

snocone: That is entirely the point of bullies writing "laws".


In this instance, the victim needs to be avenged... by trying the perp as an adult and sending her to prison at 16, where male officers can watch her shower and she'll probably get raped.

That will protect her from herself texting pictures of her naked body!
 
2014-02-08 12:21:59 PM

m00: snocone: That is entirely the point of bullies writing "laws".

In this instance, the victim needs to be avenged... by trying the perp as an adult and sending her to prison at 16, where male officers can watch her shower and she'll probably get raped.

That will protect her from herself texting pictures of her naked body!


I SEE The Light!
 
2014-02-08 12:40:20 PM
17 years, 365 days, 23 hours, 59 minutes: You are a degenerate, perverted, maladjusted sicko deviant freak for looking at this female's nude body. You are a disgusting, demented blight on society for considering sexual thoughts about her. And she cannot understand or grasp the ramifications of or be held responsible for decisions regarding her own sexual activity.

One minute later: It's normal and accepted to lust after her and want to sex her. The woman now immediately develops all of the mental and emotional skills to handle sex and her sexuality. Game on.

Makes total sense.
 
2014-02-08 12:58:31 PM
Thanks to the NSA, the feds must have the largest collection of teen porn in the world.
 
2014-02-08 01:01:17 PM
rwhamann: This is bullshiat. It dilutes the meaning of a sex crime conviction, much like tarring someone for life over public urination.

As far as I can tell,. while this could thoretically happen according to some interpretations of the law, I don't think it actually has ever happened.   Doesn't stop it from being brought up as if it did happen in every sex-crime thread, tho!
 
zeg
2014-02-08 01:08:04 PM

Disgruntled Goat: 17 years, 365 days, 23 hours, 59 minutes: You are a degenerate, perverted, maladjusted sicko deviant freak for looking at this female's nude body. You are a disgusting, demented blight on society for considering sexual thoughts about her. And she cannot understand or grasp the ramifications of or be held responsible for decisions regarding her own sexual activity.

One minute later: It's normal and accepted to lust after her and want to sex her. The woman now immediately develops all of the mental and emotional skills to handle sex and her sexuality. Game on.

Makes total sense.


Without getting into whether I agree with age of consent law as they are currently implemented, the logic isn't as broken as you make out. The reasoning that leads to the choice of age isn't, "At what point does a person develop the sophistication to meaningfully consent to sex," it is, "At what point can we have confidence that the person has developed that sophistication."

So if the age of consent is 18, that doesn't mean that something magical happens at 18, it just means that the authors of the rule judged that it was likely that many people under 18 are not sufficiently mature.

A benefit of a law written like this is legal certainty. If there is a specifically defined age of consent, you can avoid breaking the law by not having sex with anyone under that age. If there is no specific age and it is instead left to the discretion of the judge/jury, you cannot have that certainty.

Neither method is perfect, both have failure modes. Whether the laws as they are represent the best choice is debatable, but the logic behind them is not as broken as you imply.

None of this applies to the article, though. It has nothing to do with age of consent and everything to do with law enforcement and the judicial system failing miserably in their obligation to seek justice.
 
2014-02-08 01:24:09 PM
Everyone who masturbates before the age of 18 needs to be arrested for child molestation.
 
2014-02-08 01:37:24 PM

Nem Wan: "Police  say the teen crossed the line of sexting to child porn because of the lewdness of the photos."

What the hell, legally, does that even mean?  It's either a legal nude or illegal child porn. Are they creating some third, middle level out thin air?


Are you upset that police are their judgment to determine if it was porn?

Should the have some thoughtless zero tolerance policy instead?
 
2014-02-08 01:42:42 PM
The American legal system has gone insane.
 
2014-02-08 01:44:31 PM
Just wait until this generation is middle aged and some of them are running for president. Oh and they're reporters/commentators on FOXNEWS and MSNBC too. 

Everyone will be guilty of shennanigans on Twitter and Facebook and Instagram and nobody can hide from it.

To really slander and defame people's reputations and credibility they're going to have to dig really deep.
 
2014-02-08 01:46:14 PM

whither_apophis: Thanks to the NSA, the feds must have the largest collection of teen porn in the world.


Not only are they in possession of it, but they have tasks forces soliciting it from children. (have a seat over there)

Whats the penalty for that, huh? HUH?
 
2014-02-08 01:51:47 PM

DreadnaughtZeta: Ok, so according to that law, there could be a couple, aged 16 and 17, who could legally have sex. But then, the minute the older one turns 18 it would suddenly be illegal?

Seems like somebody didn't think this all the way through...


Yes, absolutely.

A seventeen-year-old girl dated a 15-year-old girl while in high school. When the seventeen-year-old girl turned 18 the younger girl's parents went after her as a pedophile.
 
2014-02-08 01:55:30 PM

m00: snocone: That is entirely the point of bullies writing "laws".

In this instance, the victim needs to be avenged... by trying the perp as an adult and sending her to prison at 16, where male officers can watch her shower and she'll probably get raped.

That will protect her from herself texting pictures of her naked body!


Fun fact: Before the 1960s, women's prisons were staffed almost entirely by female guards and men's prisons only by male guards. Then a provision of the Civil Rights Act outlawed such distinctions, so now half of all guards in women's prisons are men. I'm sure you'll also be unsurprised to know that the vast majority of reported sexual assaults in said prisons are committed by male guards rather than fellow inmates.

The point is, people can literally be getting raped, and numbnuts will be okay with it in the name of political correctness. I think it's the same sort of braindead thinking that leads to children being charged with production of child pornography for taking pictures of themselves.
 
2014-02-08 02:03:36 PM

stuffy: Everyone who masturbates before the age of 18 needs to be arrested for child molestation.


I am turning myself in tomorrow :(
 
2014-02-08 02:14:37 PM

hasty ambush: MechaPyx: Back in the day we'd just take away her phone and ground her for a week or two. Sheesh.


[www.lostrepublic.us image 720x468]


Right... Because we all know that these morality laws weren't written by the folks who claim to support smaller government...
 
2014-02-08 02:22:34 PM

AngryDragon: ZeroCorpse: When did we as a nation become so freaked out by naked adolescents?

Where have you been?  We are freaked out by EVERYTHING.

Terrorists, porn, drugs, abortions, guns, gay marriage, big government, small government, pedophile priests, pedophile teachers, vaccines, not getting vaccinated, GMOs, meat-eaters, gluten, peanuts, free trade, tariffs, unions, "right-to-work", privacy, PATRIOT, Gitmo, teen pregnancy, sex education, religion, atheism, the 1%, zero-tolerance, crime, standardized testing, charter schools, home schooling, College tuition costs, not getting a degree, unemployment, HOAs, LGBT people, rednecks, gangbangers, illegal aliens, H1B workers, taxes, reduced government services, cruise ships, H1N1, and the Illuminati.

It's OK though.  It's All For The ChildrenTM.


Dragon captures zeitgeist, Farkers dumbfounded.
 
2014-02-08 02:24:21 PM
They started doing this (charging the child with distributing child pornography) in Pennsylvania a few years ago and finally came to their senses and stopped this bullshiat bogus prosecution to "scare kids straight".

This crap is usually about an over-zealous, over-religious local prosecutor who is a self-aggrandizing asshat, not about helping children or protecting society.. The Police/Commonwealth's Attorney can't win a case against a real criminal, so they pick on a kid.

They should be ashamed.

/but they won't be
 
2014-02-08 02:29:04 PM

jaylectricity: It won't be long before today's sexting teens will be tomorrows lawyers and lawmakers. It's just a transitional period, much like when blacks were first allowed to ride in the front of the bus.


Unless it's a paddy wagon - they still usually ride in the back of those.
 
2014-02-08 02:30:32 PM

TomD9938: wambu: Police  say the teen crossed the line of sexting to child porn because of the lewdness of the photos.

So she's a dirty, dirty girl

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 400x206]

"Yes she is... Yes she is."


Back in high school, there were a few of these dirty, dirty girls. We all knew who they were. Over the past 40 years, I've seen them grew up to be fine people, good wives and good mothers. The only difference between then and now is that there are more girls who act like that and they probably face less shame for their behavior and they likely will grow up just as well.

Kids and young adults do some pretty damn stupid things.
 
2014-02-08 02:32:39 PM
charged with child por

FTFA

does anybody read what they type????
 
2014-02-08 02:57:26 PM
FTFA:
Police  say the teen crossed the line of sexting to child porn because of the lewdness of the photos.

Exactly how slutty is this slut?
 
2014-02-08 03:36:43 PM
You know what I was doing to 14yr old girls when I was 17?
 
2014-02-08 03:42:16 PM

DreadnaughtZeta: The One True TheDavid: From Wikipedia:

"The age of consent in Virginia is 18, with a close-in-age exception that allows teenagers aged 15 to 17 to engage in sexual acts but only with a partner younger than 18."

So she is old enough to masturbate, barely.

Ok, so according to that law, there could be a couple, aged 16 and 17, who could legally have sex. But then, the minute the older one turns 18 it would suddenly be illegal?

Seems like somebody didn't think this all the way through...


That is exactly it.

And they did think it through.  And the thinking was "Dang. We'd love to prosecute 16 and 17 year olds as adults for having sex.  But, it'd be too hard a sell to the public.  Ah, well, we'll just put them away for smoking pot or something."

When your job is to get paid to to prosecute criminals, you'd obviously want to prosecute as many as possible, right?

Good thing we all break laws, all the time!
 
2014-02-08 03:44:27 PM

Disgruntled Goat: 17 years, 365 days, 23 hours, 59 minutes: You are a degenerate, perverted, maladjusted sicko deviant freak for looking at this female's nude body. You are a disgusting, demented blight on society for considering sexual thoughts about her. And she cannot understand or grasp the ramifications of or be held responsible for decisions regarding her own sexual activity.

One minute later: It's normal and accepted to lust after her and want to sex her. The woman now immediately develops all of the mental and emotional skills to handle sex and her sexuality. Game on.

Makes total sense.


Legality equals morality.  Because we really, really want to believe our justice system is moral.  So, we do.
 
2014-02-08 03:47:16 PM

ZeroCorpse: I'm pretty sure NOBODY watched American Beauty and then turned into an ephebophile and ran around victimizing teenage girls because Thora Birch showed the world her breasts.


You were supposed to feel creeped out when she did that.  The whole point was her giving up her innocence to some drug dealer weirdo.

You didn't feel creeped out by her underage tatas?

Sicko.
 
2014-02-08 03:52:33 PM
I've never understood the line of thought on this one. She can't consent to the photos because she's too young to understand the implications, but she can understand the implications to be charged as though she had intent?
 
2014-02-08 03:53:42 PM
img.fark.net

Also, oddly fitting.
 
2014-02-08 03:56:36 PM

tonguedepressor: You know what I was doing to 14yr old girls when I was 17?


Dipping their ponytails in the inkwell on your desk?
 
2014-02-08 04:06:04 PM

giffin: I've never understood the line of thought on this one. She can't consent to the photos because she's too young to understand the implications, but she can understand the implications to be charged as though she had intent?


You don't understand the legal rational behind "We're trumping up charges because we can?"

Seems pretty simple to me.  That's the whole basis of our legal system!
 
2014-02-08 04:15:07 PM

vygramul: untaken_name: generallyso: It's quite the legal system where one person can be both the perpetrator and the victim.

That's how drug laws work.

I imagine you have quite the cupie doll collection.


Uh, did you mean Kewpie? And no, I collect Cabbage Patch Kids, like a normal person.
 
2014-02-08 04:27:06 PM

skinink: This way it makes the DA look tough on any type of supposed crime.


Most Prosecutors get a nice rush of serotonin when they hurt someone.
 
2014-02-08 04:51:36 PM
ZERO TOLERANCE!

We must save society and put her on the Sex Offender List immediately!
Then, she must be banished from living anywhere but the spot under the bridge that has been designated the sex offender region (not making that up, some cities have this). Yup, forcing the 16-year-old girl to live in an area into which we have concentrated all manner of sex offenders is JUSTICE!
 
m00
2014-02-08 05:57:26 PM

Need_MindBleach: The point is, people can literally be getting raped, and numbnuts will be okay with it in the name of political correctness. I think it's the same sort of braindead thinking that leads to children being charged with production of child pornography for taking pictures of themselves.


Yep! and imagined the tortured logic that puts a 16 year old girl in rape-land for taking pictures of herself. Because... and wait for it... 16 year old girls are fragile creatures, people who take pictures of 16 year old girls need to be punished for victimizing children. She victimized herself by taking nude pictures of herself!!! RAPE HER!!!

That is seriously 700 AD middle eastern justice.

In both cases, it's a justice system which is the result of "punish women for having sex" / sex-is-a-sin style moralizing.
 
2014-02-08 06:50:04 PM

megarian: drjekel_mrhyde: I just can't feel sorry for people that send anyone and their mother nude pics on purpose or by mistake.

Don't judge me.


You have not mailed me. Explain yourself!
 
2014-02-09 12:02:30 AM
The kid did a stupid thing, but a criminal record for life is idiotic.
 
2014-02-09 12:05:23 AM
Lesson learned: Don't take self nudes, kids. Stick to getting knocked up and joining the cast of 'Teen Moms'.
 
2014-02-09 12:36:22 AM
FTFA: Williams-Ortery said other teens should be aware that they stand to get in trouble for pictures of this nature.

Of this nature. Of this nature. Has everyone forgot that the human body is of nature? No. Her 16 year old body is dirty ugly sinful and a crime. Make her a sex offender for life for thinking her body is nature and beautiful.
 
2014-02-09 02:59:53 AM

TedCruz'sCrazyDad: sendtodave: MechaPyx: sendtodave: dangelder: "I don't think she should be charged with child pornography, because she is a child herself, but if she was 18 or older of course," said parent Emily Altman.

But if she was 18 or older of course, what? It wouldn't be child pornography then, would it?

What if her photos were two years old?

Then she is well and truly farked.

Yep.

Interesting, though, that a person doesn't have the right to show their own body.  I guess they don't really own it until they are 18.

Nudity is evil if the person is under 18.

18 and over, nudity is immoral.

There is a reason the Michelangelo had to paint over all the naked people and cherubs he put on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.


Well, yeah, they were adults in the paintings, and some were females.  All those priests just wanted naked little boys.
 
2014-02-09 03:00:27 AM

Oh_Enough_Already: The same people are going apeshiat she was charged would be doing cartwheels of delight if/when any filthy perverted MALE was sent to the slammer for having these pics. They're not upset because these laws exist, they're upset because they don't like seeing women held to the same legal; standard as men. Nothing more, nothing less.


If she sent it too him ... meh.  If he took a photo through her window then yes ... yes I would call him a pervert (but I still wouldn't beat him down with the full force of the law.)  I am more concerned with 'security' cameras in public toilets.
 
2014-02-09 03:40:24 AM

shtychkn: Nem Wan: "Police  say the teen crossed the line of sexting to child porn because of the lewdness of the photos."

What the hell, legally, does that even mean?  It's either a legal nude or illegal child porn. Are they creating some third, middle level out thin air?

Are you upset that police are their judgment to determine if it was porn?

Should the have some thoughtless zero tolerance policy instead?


No, of course they should use their judgment. There's a questionable premise to be inferred from TFA that there are at least three tiers of legality based on image content:  non-lacivious nude (legal, protected by First Amendment), "sexting" (supposedly illegal but lacking in "lewdness"), and finally sexting that shall be prosecuted as child porn because of "lewdness".  The first and third tiers are long established but that middle tier is a novelty with First Amendment implications if it's being applied to images that don't fit existing statutory descriptions of child pornography or obscenity.
 
2014-02-09 09:18:41 AM

namatad: rwhamann: This is bullshiat. It dilutes the meaning of a sex crime conviction, much like tarring someone for life over public urination.

GOOD thing that most of the child porn laws are written just as poorly.
Change them or charge her.

WHAT if it were her 15yo boyfriend taking the photos?
Would you want to charge him too?

OUR country is retarded when it comes to teenage sex.
The laws are written by morons who have forgotten that they all had sex when they were teens and would have taken pics if they could have.


This...
 
2014-02-09 02:12:59 PM

Nem Wan: shtychkn: Nem Wan: "Police  say the teen crossed the line of sexting to child porn because of the lewdness of the photos."

What the hell, legally, does that even mean?  It's either a legal nude or illegal child porn. Are they creating some third, middle level out thin air?

Are you upset that police are their judgment to determine if it was porn?

Should the have some thoughtless zero tolerance policy instead?

No, of course they should use their judgment. There's a questionable premise to be inferred from TFA that there are at least three tiers of legality based on image content:  non-lacivious nude (legal, protected by First Amendment), "sexting" (supposedly illegal but lacking in "lewdness"), and finally sexting that shall be prosecuted as child porn because of "lewdness".  The first and third tiers are long established but that middle tier is a novelty with First Amendment implications if it's being applied to images that don't fit existing statutory descriptions of child pornography or obscenity.


Yeah, sexting would be illegal, but the police use their judgement to not prosecute.  The "lewdness" of these sexts meant that the police did not feel that they could be over looked.

The new third tier falls into your 2nd category of illegal, but the police have used their judgement to not prosecute.

Think of it like speeding.  IF the limit is 45, then below you are not speeding and above you are speeding.   This "new third tier" that you're talking about is someone going 5 miles above the speed limit.  Its illegal.  But the police choose not to prosecute.
 
2014-02-09 04:18:41 PM
Anyone ever read this?

img1.fantasticfiction.co.uk

// How times have changed.
 
Displayed 157 of 157 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report