Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(Ars Technica)   News: Child pornographer found guilty. Fark: He's a 17-year-old who sent out his own dick pics   ( arstechnica.com) divider line
    More: Asinine, child porn laws, Washington Supreme Court, Drexel University survey, sexually explicit images, Pornography, Sheryl Gordon McCloud, numerous sexting-related cases, vulnerable victim child  
•       •       •

5608 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Sep 2017 at 2:32 AM (12 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



97 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2017-09-14 07:58:45 PM  
He victimized himself and belongs in jail!

.. wait what?
 
2017-09-14 08:00:10 PM  
What??  What sense is this??

/DNRTFA
 
2017-09-14 08:25:44 PM  

Boo_Guy: He victimized himself and belongs in jail!

.. wait what?


Actually if you read the case, he's accused of harassing a woman who didn't want to see Mr. Happy.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4040084-936099.html
 
2017-09-14 08:47:45 PM  

pueblonative: Boo_Guy: He victimized himself and belongs in jail!

.. wait what?

Actually if you read the case, he's accused of harassing a woman who didn't want to see Mr. Happy.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4040084-936099.html


From the first page of your link: "Grey was charged with and convicted of one count of second degree dealing in depictions of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct under RCW 9.68A.050." "RCW 9.68A.050 prohibits developing or disseminating sexually explicit images of minors."

So I don't know what your point here is? Child pornography laws are supposed to protect children from being exploited by others, not used to send minors to jail for taking pics of their own junk.
 
2017-09-14 08:50:48 PM  

Boo_Guy: pueblonative: Boo_Guy: He victimized himself and belongs in jail!

.. wait what?

Actually if you read the case, he's accused of harassing a woman who didn't want to see Mr. Happy.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4040084-936099.html

From the first page of your link: "Grey was charged with and convicted of one count of second degree dealing in depictions of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct under RCW 9.68A.050." "RCW 9.68A.050 prohibits developing or disseminating sexually explicit images of minors."

So I don't know what your point here is? Child pornography laws are supposed to protect children from being exploited by others, not used to send minors to jail for taking pics of their own junk.


My point is that this kid is hardly some innocent whose only victim was himself.  The child pornography charge was a bit of a stretch, but let's not think that this was anything but a douchebro in training who thought that sending unsolicited dick pics was an alpha move that scores with all the chicks.
 
2017-09-14 09:00:57 PM  

pueblonative: Boo_Guy: pueblonative: Boo_Guy: He victimized himself and belongs in jail!

.. wait what?

Actually if you read the case, he's accused of harassing a woman who didn't want to see Mr. Happy.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4040084-936099.html

From the first page of your link: "Grey was charged with and convicted of one count of second degree dealing in depictions of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct under RCW 9.68A.050." "RCW 9.68A.050 prohibits developing or disseminating sexually explicit images of minors."

So I don't know what your point here is? Child pornography laws are supposed to protect children from being exploited by others, not used to send minors to jail for taking pics of their own junk.

My point is that this kid is hardly some innocent whose only victim was himself.  The child pornography charge was a bit of a stretch, but let's not think that this was anything but a douchebro in training who thought that sending unsolicited dick pics was an alpha move that scores with all the chicks.


Then charge him with harassment, not child porn. Instead they dropped the harassment charge and kept the child porn one.

I'll stick with my original statement.
 
2017-09-14 09:58:12 PM  
I just checked and the age of consent in WA is 16. So he could parade around naked in front of a 22-year-old and have all the sexy time he wanted, but he can't send a dick pic.

Our country is so very, very farked up.
 
2017-09-15 12:04:50 AM  

pueblonative: Boo_Guy: pueblonative: Boo_Guy: He victimized himself and belongs in jail!

.. wait what?

Actually if you read the case, he's accused of harassing a woman who didn't want to see Mr. Happy.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4040084-936099.html

From the first page of your link: "Grey was charged with and convicted of one count of second degree dealing in depictions of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct under RCW 9.68A.050." "RCW 9.68A.050 prohibits developing or disseminating sexually explicit images of minors."

So I don't know what your point here is? Child pornography laws are supposed to protect children from being exploited by others, not used to send minors to jail for taking pics of their own junk.

My point is that this kid is hardly some innocent whose only victim was himself.  The child pornography charge was a bit of a stretch, but let's not think that this was anything but a douchebro in training who thought that sending unsolicited dick pics was an alpha move that scores with all the chicks.


According to TFA, he was a registered sex offender prior to this incident, and is apparently riddled with Asperger's. Not a terribly engaging poster boy for this issue.

Still, the child pornographry angle is farking ridiculous.
 
2017-09-15 12:37:43 AM  
That wasn't a bright move on the kid's part.
 
2017-09-15 01:12:55 AM  
I hate that prosecutors can abuse laws like this with impunity.
 
2017-09-15 01:19:42 AM  
So when is the NSA going to unseal their case files on every dude who every tormented an attractive girl with heavy breathing creeper crank calls prior to the dawn of the internets?
 
2017-09-15 02:37:57 AM  

fragMasterFlash: So when is the NSA going to unseal their case files on every dude who every tormented an attractive girl with heavy breathing creeper crank calls prior to the dawn of the internets?


I just tell them I have asthma.
 
2017-09-15 02:38:20 AM  

Cagey B: pueblonative: Boo_Guy: pueblonative: Boo_Guy: He victimized himself and belongs in jail!

.. wait what?

Actually if you read the case, he's accused of harassing a woman who didn't want to see Mr. Happy.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4040084-936099.html

From the first page of your link: "Grey was charged with and convicted of one count of second degree dealing in depictions of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct under RCW 9.68A.050." "RCW 9.68A.050 prohibits developing or disseminating sexually explicit images of minors."

So I don't know what your point here is? Child pornography laws are supposed to protect children from being exploited by others, not used to send minors to jail for taking pics of their own junk.

My point is that this kid is hardly some innocent whose only victim was himself.  The child pornography charge was a bit of a stretch, but let's not think that this was anything but a douchebro in training who thought that sending unsolicited dick pics was an alpha move that scores with all the chicks.

According to TFA, he was a registered sex offender prior to this incident, and is apparently riddled with Asperger's. Not a terribly engaging poster boy for this issue.

Still, the child pornographry angle is farking ridiculous.


As a parent of an Asperger's kid, I feel entitled to have a sensible chuckle at that
 
2017-09-15 02:39:36 AM  
The little perv not only sent out dick pics to this woman, but... by doing so.... caused her to receive pics of a minor.... which she could have gotten in trouble for possessing.

Dick pics are not cool (really) and incredibly stupid.  Guys don't seem to realize that women just laugh at the pics anways.  Even cropping those photos doesn't make your "little soldier" any more enticing.  It just makes it look goofier.  Try talking to women..... maybe skip the groin glamour shots.  It just makes you seem drunk/desperate.
 
2017-09-15 02:43:45 AM  

fragMasterFlash: So when is the NSA going to unseal their case files on every dude who every tormented an attractive girl with heavy breathing creeper crank calls prior to the dawn of the internets?


It's me again, Margaret.
 
2017-09-15 02:44:09 AM  

fragMasterFlash: So when is the NSA going to unseal their case files on every dude who every tormented an attractive girl with heavy breathing creeper crank calls prior to the dawn of the internets?


The converse of that is even more alarming: When is the NSAc going to release the exculpatory evidence they're holding on thousands of Americans that are incarcerated for crimes they did not commit.

Because they have it.  They just aren't giving it up.
 
2017-09-15 02:45:42 AM  

pueblonative: who thought that sending unsolicited dick pics was an alpha move that scores with all the chicks.


It depends.  Being from Washington, there were alternative dick pics he could have sent to the woman.

img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-09-15 02:47:41 AM  
Dammit, can we just hurry up and make the sending of unsolicited dick pics illegal and then make it all this stop. No one ever wants to see a dick pic in the first place. Yeah you have a dick and you love it lots, just like almost every other male on the planet. Get over it.
 
2017-09-15 02:47:54 AM  

Dinjiin: pueblonative: who thought that sending unsolicited dick pics was an alpha move that scores with all the chicks.

It depends.  Being from Washington, there were alternative dick pics he could have sent to the woman.

[img.fark.net image 640x640]


In fairness, the pic doesn't do it justice.  Seems taste is the difference and has been for some time
 
2017-09-15 02:48:55 AM  

Madman drummers bummers: fragMasterFlash: So when is the NSA going to unseal their case files on every dude who every tormented an attractive girl with heavy breathing creeper crank calls prior to the dawn of the internets?

It's me again, Margaret.


It occurs to me that the younger members of the audience are unfamiliar with this gem.

Ray Stevens - It's Me Again Margaret
Youtube 4Wb2nZR6qbE
 
2017-09-15 02:50:00 AM  

Dinjiin: pueblonative: who thought that sending unsolicited dick pics was an alpha move that scores with all the chicks.

It depends.  Being from Washington, there were alternative dick pics he could have sent to the woman.

[img.fark.net image 640x640]


ETBODs! Eat Two Bags of Dicks!
 
2017-09-15 02:50:23 AM  
I was going to try and make a Shut Up and Dance reference, but I'm just now realizing Bronn was the other dude.

nypdecider.files.wordpress.comView Full Size
 
2017-09-15 02:52:35 AM  

Blake Superior: fragMasterFlash: So when is the NSA going to unseal their case files on every dude who every tormented an attractive girl with heavy breathing creeper crank calls prior to the dawn of the internets?

I just tell them I have asthma.


img.fark.netView Full Size

What a little breather might look like
 
2017-09-15 02:56:38 AM  

GungFu: Dinjiin: pueblonative: who thought that sending unsolicited dick pics was an alpha move that scores with all the chicks.

It depends.  Being from Washington, there were alternative dick pics he could have sent to the woman.

[img.fark.net image 640x640]

ETBODs! Eat Two Bags of Dicks!


I wish I could funny this about 30 times.  Well played
 
2017-09-15 02:57:35 AM  

Nidiot: Dammit, can we just hurry up and make the sending of unsolicited dick pics illegal and then make it all this stop. No one ever wants to see a dick pic in the first place. Yeah you have a dick and you love it lots, just like almost every other male on the planet. Get over it.


When dick pics are outlawed, only outlaws will have dick pics
 
2017-09-15 03:02:00 AM  

Naido: When dick pics are outlawed, only outlaws will have dick pics


Speaking of outlaw dick pics...

img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-09-15 03:03:09 AM  

pueblonative: Boo_Guy: pueblonative: Boo_Guy: He victimized himself and belongs in jail!

.. wait what?

Actually if you read the case, he's accused of harassing a woman who didn't want to see Mr. Happy.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4040084-936099.html

From the first page of your link: "Grey was charged with and convicted of one count of second degree dealing in depictions of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct under RCW 9.68A.050." "RCW 9.68A.050 prohibits developing or disseminating sexually explicit images of minors."

So I don't know what your point here is? Child pornography laws are supposed to protect children from being exploited by others, not used to send minors to jail for taking pics of their own junk.

My point is that this kid is hardly some innocent whose only victim was himself.


Dude...supporting an utterly preposterous reading of the law that fundamentally undermines the credibility of both the legislature and the judiciary just to stick it to someone who you think is a bad guy is incredibly, dangerously myopic.  WTF is wrong with you?  Do you even understand the basic function of a judicial system?

The child pornography charge was a bit of a stretch, but let's not think that this was anything but a douchebro in training who thought that sending unsolicited dick pics was an alpha move that scores with all the chicks.

IT DOES NOT FARKING MATTER.  The child pornography conviction is not "a bit of a stretch".  It's an application of a law so out of step with the law's intention and purpose that it falls completely outside the bounds of logic or sanity.
 
2017-09-15 03:18:11 AM  
Lucky he didn't rape himself. He could have got life.
 
2017-09-15 03:22:25 AM  

fragMasterFlash: So when is the NSA going to unseal their case files on every dude who every tormented an attractive girl with heavy breathing creeper crank calls prior to the dawn of the internets?


Most prosecutors in this country would be in prison.
 
2017-09-15 03:27:34 AM  

Habeas Porpoise: As a parent of an Asperger's kid, I feel entitled to have a sensible chuckle at that


As a parent of an Asperger's kid,it just made me feel tired and exasperated.
 
2017-09-15 03:37:12 AM  

Pointy Tail of Satan: Lucky he didn't rape himself. He could have got life.


And a 7-figure contract with Brazzers
 
2017-09-15 03:45:34 AM  
img.fark.netView Full Size


Loser--------> Beat it on down the line----------> Shakedown Street
 
2017-09-15 04:12:04 AM  

Pointy Tail of Satan: Lucky he didn't rape himself. He could have got life.


For full irony, they should have charged him as an adult.
 
2017-09-15 04:26:27 AM  

puffy999: fragMasterFlash: So when is the NSA going to unseal their case files on every dude who every tormented an attractive girl with heavy breathing creeper crank calls prior to the dawn of the internets?

Most prosecutors in this country would be in prison.


They are.
 
2017-09-15 04:34:18 AM  

Kouta: That wasn't a bright move on the kid's part.


Correct! It was a dick move.
 
2017-09-15 04:41:27 AM  

Z-clipped: pueblonative: Boo_Guy: pueblonative: Boo_Guy: He victimized himself and belongs in jail!

.. wait what?

Actually if you read the case, he's accused of harassing a woman who didn't want to see Mr. Happy.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4040084-936099.html

From the first page of your link: "Grey was charged with and convicted of one count of second degree dealing in depictions of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct under RCW 9.68A.050." "RCW 9.68A.050 prohibits developing or disseminating sexually explicit images of minors."

So I don't know what your point here is? Child pornography laws are supposed to protect children from being exploited by others, not used to send minors to jail for taking pics of their own junk.

My point is that this kid is hardly some innocent whose only victim was himself.

Dude...supporting an utterly preposterous reading of the law that fundamentally undermines the credibility of both the legislature and the judiciary just to stick it to someone who you think is a bad guy is incredibly, dangerously myopic.  WTF is wrong with you?  Do you even understand the basic function of a judicial system?

The child pornography charge was a bit of a stretch, but let's not think that this was anything but a douchebro in training who thought that sending unsolicited dick pics was an alpha move that scores with all the chicks.

IT DOES NOT FARKING MATTER.  The child pornography conviction is not "a bit of a stretch".  It's an application of a law so out of step with the law's intention and purpose that it falls completely outside the bounds of logic or sanity.


Bears repeating.  This kid should not be put on the national sex offender registry as a convicted pedophile but that's where he will be for the rest of his life.  He will never be able to have a normal life again in the United States and all because he made a dumb decision at seventeen instead of noneteen.
 
2017-09-15 04:47:20 AM  

bonobo73: Z-clipped: pueblonative: Boo_Guy: pueblonative: Boo_Guy: He victimized himself and belongs in jail!

.. wait what?

Actually if you read the case, he's accused of harassing a woman who didn't want to see Mr. Happy.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4040084-936099.html

From the first page of your link: "Grey was charged with and convicted of one count of second degree dealing in depictions of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct under RCW 9.68A.050." "RCW 9.68A.050 prohibits developing or disseminating sexually explicit images of minors."

So I don't know what your point here is? Child pornography laws are supposed to protect children from being exploited by others, not used to send minors to jail for taking pics of their own junk.

My point is that this kid is hardly some innocent whose only victim was himself.

Dude...supporting an utterly preposterous reading of the law that fundamentally undermines the credibility of both the legislature and the judiciary just to stick it to someone who you think is a bad guy is incredibly, dangerously myopic.  WTF is wrong with you?  Do you even understand the basic function of a judicial system?

The child pornography charge was a bit of a stretch, but let's not think that this was anything but a douchebro in training who thought that sending unsolicited dick pics was an alpha move that scores with all the chicks.

IT DOES NOT FARKING MATTER.  The child pornography conviction is not "a bit of a stretch".  It's an application of a law so out of step with the law's intention and purpose that it falls completely outside the bounds of logic or sanity.

Bears repeating.  This kid should not be put on the national sex offender registry as a convicted pedophile but that's where he will be for the rest of his life.  He will never be able to have a normal life again in the United States and all because he made a dumb decision at seventeen instead of noneteen.


This is why I think the sex offendor registry needs to be updated. If a guy like this is on the list it should be for repeated unwanted dick pic sending, NOT pedophilia, a far worse crime. I think this is why the list should be more selective and specific. People should be able to know who is the repeat offender child rapist and who pissed against the side of the wall behind the bar when they were drunk once in college, if you insist on making them share the same list.
 
2017-09-15 05:11:31 AM  
The rationale here seems to be that he knew that her possessing the picture was a felony, and sent it anyway.  Therefore, knowing commission of a felony.

I mean, I'd argue that this is more in the vein of delivering a threat by mail / assault, but since there's not really a specific body of law for it and since the more appropriate charges would likely get him treated legally as a violent felon whereas this is most likely to get him into a program with psychiatric treatment, I can see why the court is going the way it is.

And it's not like the charge isn't legit in itself.  It became entirely reasonable once it was established that he knew the material was illegal and tried to foist if off on someone who could have gotten locked up for possessing it.
 
2017-09-15 05:18:23 AM  
Also,  pleanty of chicks like to keep some of the more pathetic dick pics they get so they can send it to dudes who ask for thier nudes.  So farkers are actually saving the farkettes the trouble of finding pics of laughable  cawks.
 
2017-09-15 05:20:54 AM  

Jim_Callahan: The rationale here seems to be that he knew that her possessing the picture was a felony, and sent it anyway.  Therefore, knowing commission of a felony.

I mean, I'd argue that this is more in the vein of delivering a threat by mail / assault, but since there's not really a specific body of law for it and since the more appropriate charges would likely get him treated legally as a violent felon whereas this is most likely to get him into a program with psychiatric treatment, I can see why the court is going the way it is.

And it's not like the charge isn't legit in itself.  It became entirely reasonable once it was established that he knew the material was illegal and tried to foist if off on someone who could have gotten locked up for possessing it.


You said "vein" in a thread about dicks.

Ewwwwww.
 
2017-09-15 05:49:02 AM  

fusillade762: I just checked and the age of consent in WA is 16. So he could parade around naked in front of a 22-year-old and have all the sexy time he wanted, but he can't send a dick pic.

Our country is so very, very farked up.


In the vast majority of states it's cool to bang certain people who you can't legally contact online to bang, thanks to federal law which regulates the internet.

This case is even more farked up, since it's pretty much the exact opposite of the law's intent. The idea is to protect children from anyone coercing them into creating explicit sexual content, not to prevent horny teens from creating it unprompted. If a teen, unsolicited, sends a dick pick to someone older, then if ANYONE is going to be charged it should be the adult if they don't immediately delete it, but certainly not the dumb kid.
 
2017-09-15 06:07:53 AM  
With this legal precedent it'd be interesting to see if a girl in Washington subsequently gets hit with the same conviction for sending boobies in text or whatever.
 
2017-09-15 06:19:30 AM  
There really needs to be an overarching law that one cannot be both the perpetrator and victim in a crime.  I don't care what area of the law this is in, it makes no sense at all.

Now, if the 22 year old who got the pics led this 17 year old on... we may have an issue here.  I get that.

Killing is illegal. Very. Even attempting it and not succeeding- pretty illegal. Attempted suicide and suicide are both legal in the US (I'm going to trust Wiki on this one and not dig into case law, as IANAL.)
 
2017-09-15 06:20:38 AM  
I'm a child pornographer. My then girlfriend (16 at the time) and myself (17 at the time) took nude pictures of each other in 1986.

//it was her idea
//she got the film developed
 
2017-09-15 06:24:05 AM  

pueblonative: Boo_Guy: pueblonative: Boo_Guy: He victimized himself and belongs in jail!

.. wait what?

Actually if you read the case, he's accused of harassing a woman who didn't want to see Mr. Happy.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4040084-936099.html

From the first page of your link: "Grey was charged with and convicted of one count of second degree dealing in depictions of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct under RCW 9.68A.050." "RCW 9.68A.050 prohibits developing or disseminating sexually explicit images of minors."

So I don't know what your point here is? Child pornography laws are supposed to protect children from being exploited by others, not used to send minors to jail for taking pics of their own junk.

My point is that this kid is hardly some innocent whose only victim was himself.  The child pornography charge was a bit of a stretch, but let's not think that this was anything but a douchebro in training who thought that sending unsolicited dick pics was an alpha move that scores with all the chicks.


Clearly you've never sent out unsolicited dick pics. Its a lot like fishing.
 
2017-09-15 06:29:10 AM  
If he's over the age of consent how is it child pr0n? Does not compute...

/didn't stay at a Holiday Inn last night
 
2017-09-15 06:39:09 AM  

johnphantom: I'm a child pornographer. My then girlfriend (16 at the time) and myself (17 at the time) took nude pictures of each other in 1986.

//it was her idea
//she got the film developed


She GOT the film developed?  That was smart. I'm pretty sure they had polaroids back then.
 
2017-09-15 06:39:33 AM  

Oysterman: I was going to try and make a Shut Up and Dance reference, but I'm just now realizing Bronn was the other dude.

[nypdecider.files.wordpress.com image 850x566]


Another instance where Bronn is the other dude:

Robson & Jerome - I Believe
Youtube b74A7BP6Rvo
 
2017-09-15 06:58:34 AM  

Just another Heartland Weirdass: Also,  pleanty of chicks like to keep some of the more pathetic dick pics they get so they can send it to dudes who ask for thier nudes.  So farkers are actually saving the farkettes the trouble of finding pics of laughable  cawks.


Too soft. Women should return the favour by sending pics of perhaps the girl who is in a container that rhymes with "bub", or the citrus gathering. Something in the category of what has been seen and cannot be unseen.
 
2017-09-15 07:16:49 AM  
A more suitable punishment would be to dismiss the case on the basis that the dick was too small to constitute porn.
 
Displayed 50 of 97 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report