Teen Boy Target of Outrageous Misuse of Child Pornography Laws
May 28th, 2008 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
Criminal defense attorney Douglas R. Slain (pictured) has a great post about an outrageous misuse of child pornography laws. The target, of course, is male--in this case Alex Phillips, a 17-year old high school student from La Crosse, Wisconsin. Slain writes:
"Phillips may not be the brightest crayon in the box, but his story is one that once again calls into question the legislative sanity of some of the overreach of our laws regarding what constitutes 'child pornography.'
"It turns out that Phillips at some point in the last year was friendly with a 16-year old girl called HLK (14 months his junior) who sent him two explicit photos of her completely naked in different positions. She took the photos with her cell phone camera and sent them to his email address. Phillips, apparently miffed that HLK had started seeing someone else recently, decided to post the photos (with lewd captions) to his MySpace account."
I condemn Phillips' vindictive spurned lover routine, but authorities went way, way overboard here. Phillips is being charged with two felonies--possession of child pornography and sexual exploitation of a child under 18 years of age. Both of these are wildly inappropriate for the situation. (He's also being charged with misdemeanor defamation, which I think is fair.)
The Phillips case is another example of law enforcement using laws designed to entrap adults who are exploiting children as a way of punishing/jailing teen boys. Child pornography laws are supposed to target adult men exploiting 9-year-old children. They aren't supposed to target teen lovers.
Similarly, statutory rape laws--whose purpose is to prevent 30-year-old men from having sex with 15-year-old girls--are increasingly being used to target teen boys who have sex with girls who are in similar age brackets. One good example can be found here.
Read more of Slain's commentary about Alex Phillips here.
"));
19 queries. 0.489 seconds.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:08 pm
I'm having a REALLY tough time finding any sympathy for this kid. The police very generously offered him the chance to make the whole thing go away. His response (verbatim), "Fuck that, I'm keeping them up!"
Is this kid somebody that the mens' movement should rally behind? I think not.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
Wow, isn't this the same county that wants to let all of their female inmates out? Remind me to never set foot in LaCrosse County Wisconsin, or to drink any beer from the LaCrosse Brewery. Truelly disturbing.
That kid could come work for me any day. Yes what he did was wrong, but it certainly does not merit misdomeanor charges, let alone felony charges.
But yet the Patriarchy continues on to protect the interests of all of us dominant men in society (sarcasm).
May 29th, 2008 at 12:07 am
Surely the girl bears some responsibility also. After all she was the individual who produced and committed the work to the internet originally.
In a similar vein...
This week in Aus police raided a photo exhibition because it included nude photos of kids...well girl actually.
Police chief rejects artists' Henson outcry
Meanwhile my local library has "The Boy" by Germaine Greer, a coffee table book full of nude boys, available to all comers. I'm currently trying to get some feedback from the NSW police as to whether they plan to raid their local library.
May 29th, 2008 at 12:57 am
That's the first I heard about the female inmate issue.
After reviewing the statues, I believe the girl should be charged with equal felony charges. All though the picture were of her, the statute doesn't state that it's okay to take photos of yourself if under 18, and be in posession of those photos.
These power hard ons need to stop. Malicious judicial behaviors. It's no wonder why there is such a lack of trust in our government's ability to properly rule.
May 29th, 2008 at 3:31 am
WTF???
Fact: He 1) Possessed child ponography and 2) Transmitted it electronically.
Outcome: He's in big trouble.
Fact: She 1) Generated child pornography, 2) Possessed child pornography, and 3) Transmitted it electronically.
Outcome: She's in no trouble whatsoever.
Honestly, I think my head is just gonna explode one day like the dude from the movie Scanners.
May 29th, 2008 at 3:58 am
I've had trouble linking to the full article, as it shuts down the web browser. So I'm commenting based on what is here.
However, I think there is a good argument to be made that the boy should be charged with transmitting child pornography.
After all, he did post photos of an under-age girl in a forum where others (including maybe adults) would be able to access them. Now it is highly likely that the boy would not have understood the consequences of child pornography laws when he did this. Still, he must have know that he was doing the wrong thing by posting pictures that she presumably did not want others to see. And ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Taking into consideration the boy's age, it would be appropriate if he received a much lighter penalty than what an adult would receive for this offence.
As for suggesting that the girl is equally guilty, come off it guys. Even if she was technically guilty of the same offence, her actions were far less serious. Firstly, she wasn't transmitting images of anyone but herself. Secondly, she only sent them to one person. Whereas he made them available in a forum where many others could access them.
Police and prosecutors have to make judgements about the seriousness of alleged offences and whether it is worth prosecuting all the time. It is not unusual to fail to prosecute a minor offence if the offender can help get a conviction over a more serious offence.
May 29th, 2008 at 4:09 am
It is a bit silly to suggest that the girl should be charged with creating child porn for having taken the pictures of herself.
The whole point about child porn laws is to protect children from exploitation. If a minor takes photos of herself, this is a completely different matter from someone else taken photos of a minor or transmitting them.
Suppose if an underage girl had a crush on me, and sent me some nude photos of herself. So long as I had not encouraged her to do this, I should not be charged with any offence. But if I then started sending these photos to other people or posting them on the internet, I should be charged over it.
May 29th, 2008 at 4:22 am
Nick S, you are really missing the boat on this. The issue is much bigger and more nuanced.
This is about power. This is about one's fate in a society based upon one's personal characteristics.
I'll give you an example. I am a minority. The fact is, minorities have been and sometimes still are mistreated. So, various cultural, regulatory, and legal norms have changed over the years. Great. No problem. Citizens should retain basic rights to opportunity and dignity in a society that values justice.
However, it didn't stop there. The politically correct machine took place and so now, in some settings, we have simply reversed the wrongdoing. Let me make a racist joke about a white guy at work and he make a racist joke about me. If it leads to a confrontation, I bet I'll win. I'll win because I'm a member of the "protected" class, the poor helpless minority. Of course it's BS, but it is reality nonetheless.
In the same way, this young lady is viewed as the poor helpless victim from the "protected" class. While Draconian standards are being applied to this young man, she gets off scot free and, even more mind-boggingly, is probably thought of as a courageous victim-hero.
She started this. She has no problem using her body to manipulate boys. She knows she is underage. She knows child porn is illegal. She sent the images first.
Wake up, man.
May 29th, 2008 at 4:28 am
The idea behind banning child pornography was to prevent harm to minors and children. It is surprising that the law does not consider the child making the pornographic element. Why is no one investigating why this girl behaved the way she did? Was she molested as a child? Maybe they ought to think of protecting the children more than enforcing meaningless laws with absolutely no consequence to serve the purpose.
I heared about a case once where the police were able to apprehend a child molester based on a child pornograhic video he shot. It was an evidence in their case against him. Makes me wonder why child pornography is so illegal. They are actually making holding evidence to a crime - illegal. It is like saying, taking pictures of yourself robbing the bank is illegal, then distributing it to other people is illegal. Although robbing a bank is nowhere as bad as hurting a child. Another moronic law that is keeping predators safe.
May 29th, 2008 at 4:37 am
Nick.
"So long as I had not encouraged her to do this, I should not be charged with any offence. "
You will be charged - promoting child porn is a crime, but possession of it is also a crime. If the minor "victim" sends you the pictures. You are just promoted to being a felon as soon as it drops into your mailbox. Then after that point, all you can do is hide your "crime" and destroy evidence of it. Besides, if the law is meant to stop exploitation of minors - explain to me how this is exploitation of a minor? Isn't the alleged perp also a minor? what about harm to him?
In fact, if he had reported her, she should have been charged with producing child porn. But, he still would be a possible target for some charges - when he reports her crime.
May 29th, 2008 at 6:40 am
How can it be pornographic if she is only nude? I thought pornographic was sexual in nature. This appears to be nude photos, which does not sound pornographic. Defamation? Maybe. Pornographic? No.
May 29th, 2008 at 7:48 am
Demonizing ALL male sexuality so as to increase the price of sex. But this hits the nail on the head:
Female sentencing discount anyone? Or is it another case of males preening as protectors of women-- showing they are tough on crime and watching out for females and kids in one package?
May 29th, 2008 at 8:01 am
Chris D Says:
May 29th, 2008 at 3:31 am
WTF???
Fact: He 1) Possessed child ponography and 2) Transmitted it electronically.
Outcome: He's in big trouble.
Fact: She 1) Generated child pornography, 2) Possessed child pornography, and 3) Transmitted it electronically.
Outcome: She's in no trouble whatsoever.
Honestly, I think my head is just gonna explode one day like the dude from the movie Scanners.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
You beat me to it, so I will just say, your post has my vote.
Let us not forget that she also 4) corrupted the morals of a minor even if it was herself and another minor 5) caused child endangerment to herself and the boy she sent it to, after all you have to be 18 to buy pornography
b
May 29th, 2008 at 8:07 am
Didn't she distribute child pornography to him first?
What charges is she facing?
May 29th, 2008 at 8:11 am
lets see. if an underage boy took and sent nude pictures of himself to an older girl ( 17 yrs ), and then as revenge for love lost, she posts him on the internet, would our social justice system of today hold her accountable? would she be entered into the sex register for 20 years or so? would here name even be released (remember she is still only 17)? who would win the civil laws suits between families, surely to follow? what would l. weihl have to say?
my problem is that i think i already know the answers.
May 29th, 2008 at 8:14 am
Check out the more detailed description at The Smoking Gun. It sounds like she bent over and snapped a closeup of her nether regions -- hardly an artsy-fartsy shot, if you ask me.
Other comments are dead-on about this: she created and transmitted child porn... and yet nobody even considered going after her for that. The male is being prosecuted based on a strict reading of the statute; the female has no culpability whatsoever.
Now let's reverse the genders. Let's say the boy snapped a photo of his penis and sent it to the girl. I'll bet the outcome would be the same -- he would STILL be the perp, and she would STILL be the victim. Disgusting.
May 29th, 2008 at 8:15 am
Nick S Says:
As for suggesting that the girl is equally guilty, come off it guys. Even if she was technically guilty of the same offence, her actions were far less serious. Firstly, she wasn't transmitting images of anyone but herself. Secondly, she only sent them to one person. Whereas he made them available in a forum where many others could access them.
Sharing and trading images online isn't a crime in and of itself, it's only a crime by virtue of encouraging the production of child pornography, which in turn requires sexual abuse of a child. The production of child pornography is deemed so evil that anything associated with it or enabling it is also deemed a crime. The foundation for making any of this illegal is to stop the production of child pornography. Creating it is by far the more serious offense.
May 29th, 2008 at 8:27 am
You'd think... you'd THINK... that after the Genarlow Wilson case, and these cases - h t t p : / / w w w . e t h i c a l t r e a t m e n t . o r g / s t o r i e s . h t m - that young men would clue in: it's not funny anymore and it can and will ruin their lives.
I feel for the lad, really, but the writing was, is and has been on the wall for a long time. He paid his nickel and entered in the Joust. He lost.
Will the girl gace any punitive repercussions for taking the pics? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha ... not a prayer. She'll get the lace glove treatment and be home in time for corn flakes, fully empowered to go trash another mans life if he doesn't pander to her whimsies.
Gunner Retired
May 29th, 2008 at 8:35 am
This is kind of like women who are disgusted because guys look at playboy magazine.
It seems like they never get around to being disgusted with the women who actually pose for the pictures!
May 29th, 2008 at 8:54 am
Dave,
Thanks for clarifying that. If she sent him the pictures, she should be the one in trouble, which it looks like she did. He should not be charged.
May 29th, 2008 at 9:03 am
I'm curious to know how many couples that started dating when they were 16/17 and took pictures of each other and are now married can be brought up on child pornography charges?
is there a statute of limitations on that or is it considered so bad that it is never forgiven?
May 29th, 2008 at 10:12 am
Chris D. said: "She started this. She has no problem using her body to manipulate boys. She knows she is underage. She knows child porn is illegal. She sent the images first."
Exactly. Give that man a cigar. She deserves to be held accountable for at the very least producing the child 'porn.' And IMO he should probably on the hook for something akin to copyright infringement, but no more.
Can somebody please tell me, is this another example of that "male privilege" the feminists and their fellow-travelers keep braying about? If so, the women can take mine - I don't want it.
May 29th, 2008 at 10:21 am
The double-standard in not charging the girl is common, despite the fact that she, too, should be guilty if the boy is. (And he should not.)
One of the more famous instannces of this double standard, where boys are fully accountable for anything involving their penises, and girls have no accountability whatsoever, is this case: http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/06/02/deal_okd_in_milton_academy_sex_case/
Here's what happened: Teen boys and a girl all commit what could be construed as statutory rape -- but, of course, only the boys are charged. Read the humiliating apologies the boys are forced to deliver in open court. And then read the absolutely correct comments of Prof. Alan M. Dershowitz: ''The idea that these youngsters should be branded rapists and the girl should be labeled a victim is preposterous," he said. Right on, Professor! The District Attorney's comments in rebuttal are especially useless, and implicitly sexist. And, of course, the "victim's" name was withheld by the Boston Globe while the "rapists'" names are splashed all over the the paper.
Ours is a justice system run amok with radical feminist sympathies.
May 29th, 2008 at 10:26 am
I read an article about this, apparently the boy was given the chance to remove the pictures:
*When contacted by police about the two images, Phillips, 17, balked at removing the pictures of the girl. Warned that he could face jail for publishing images of the minor, Phillips told an investigator, "Fuck that, I am keeping them up,"*
That was from the article I read.
I'm sorry, but the kid was an idiot. He was given the choice to take them down without consequences, and he didn't! I don't know about anyone else, but if I was given a 'get out of prison free card' I'd take it in a minute!
I would also argue that the girl was an idiot too, but to a much less degree. Don't take photos of yourself if you don't want others to see them. It's just a fact of life, maybe an unfair fact, but a fact of life.
May 29th, 2008 at 10:32 am
gwallen points out - "Surely the girl bears some responsibility also. After all she was the individual who produced and committed the work to the internet originally."
Creation and distribution of child pornography would be the appropriate charge here.
May 29th, 2008 at 10:41 am
John, I read the same article. The impression left was that they weren't going to charge him with anything but simply wanted the stuff removed, and he thumbed his nose at them so they threw the book at him.
Hey, males are risk-takers, you know. Perhaps this boy is the gratuitous author of his own disappointment.
May 29th, 2008 at 10:49 am
John,
Irrespective of whether he was an idiot or not, she still committed a crime. That is unless you see production of child pornography as a non-criminal activity. Besides, what right does the police have to let go of a criminal? They don't. If they offered to do that, they are guilty of dereliction of duty. If what you said, did happen, the boy is facing punishment for not honoring the will of the girl - which is even worse, only slaves could be punished for not honoring the command of the masters..
May 29th, 2008 at 11:17 am
Laws against having/distributing child porn = thoughtcrime.
Laws against making child porn are valid, as that is where the abuse and exploitation of children come in.
Mind you that the laws against child porn are some of the most insane out there. Even "fake" child porn, totally created images, are treated as the same as those which were made with real children. I faintly remember one case where a written story was treated as child porn.
It is unconscionable for our government to charge him for thoughtcrime while allowing the creator to go free. She is guilty of exactly as much exploitation as he is for posting them.
May 29th, 2008 at 11:27 am
The guy was an idiot – but then again he is only 17.
I agree with others on this, it is clearly a mis-use of the statutes. They were (obviously) meant to protect minors from adults but they are increasingly being used to punish adolescents for normal adolescent behavior (cf, eg, the Genarlo Wilson case mentioned by Gunner Retired). None the less, if they are going to apply the black letter of the law to him then, per force, they should do the same to her. She created and initially disseminated the material – albeit, presumably, its intention was for private use. The fact remains that she is, in all probability (nb, I haven’t read the relevant statutes), technically in breach of the law. The “possession” charge is valid, but I can’t see how they think the second charge – “exploitation” - will stick. Even though truth is an accepted defense in defamation, I suspect he will get nailed on that one – the only reasonable charge against him.
May 29th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Let us not forget because of what this kid did he now will not be eligible to adopt or work with children.
Again let me reference Miley Cyrus fine she was not exposing anything but she was still nude. Like I stated in that blog I know what would have happened to me if I [a nobody in the photography world compared to Vanity Fair] and this case more than proves it because he did not even take the pictures. Case closed on that issue.
b
May 29th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
John Says:
"I'm sorry, but the kid was an idiot. He was given the choice to take them down without consequences, and he didn't! I don't know about anyone else, but if I was given a 'get out of prison free card' I'd take it in a minute!"
John, you're way off in left field in what you are implying here. You're implying, intentionally or not, that the filing of these charges against the boy is in some way understandable giving his horrendous attitude.
It is not the FILING of A charge that is the problem.
It is the SERIOUSNESS of the charges that were filed that is the problem.
If a cop told an underage drinker to pour his beer out and he pulled an attitude and refused, we would not charge him with manslaughter. Get it?
May 29th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
I really feel sorry for this kid since he is nothing more than a "I'm tough on crime." soundbyte for the 11 oclock news.
Child pornography laws are supposed to target adult men exploiting 9-year-old children. They aren't supposed to target teen lovers.
Similarly, statutory rape laws--whose purpose is to prevent 30-year-old men from having sex with 15-year-old girls--are increasingly being used to target teen boys who have sex with girls who are in similar age brackets. One good example can be found here.
I understand that the majority of these crimes are adult male against underage female but that whole section sounds a little too gender specific to me.
May 29th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Yes, but it IS why those laws were made.
Were it women committing the majority of those crimes, there would be some study on how to help them, not more criminalization. Hell, look what happened when women murdered infants because they decided not to take care of the child before an adoption agency could pick the kid up.
May 29th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
To be guilty of child pornography, a person other than the photographed subject must exploit a child, which under current law, is someone under the age of 18 years old.
A child taking pictures of herself, as in this case is not exploiting [b]another person[/b] - which is what the law seeks to prohibit. The laws do not prohibit a child from taking pictures of themselves. A person who takes pictures of themselves in this manner is considered to be giving informed consent, providing that the child was not encouraged by the recipient of the pictures to do so.
There is no law prohibiting a child from taking their own pictures and sending them to another person that they believe in good faith, would want those pictures.
Basically, there are no laws that the girl can be prosecuted under.
The boys biggest blunder was publishing the pictures on a forum that is available to the general public. If he had not done that, he wouldn't have had a problem.
If you want laws to cover this type of situation, go and lobby for them. Be careful of what you ask for though. The more laws that there are, the more restrictive society will be.
Doc
May 29th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
Doc - "If you want laws to cover this type of situation, go and lobby for them. Be careful of what you ask for though. The more laws that there are, the more restrictive society will be."
I totally agree.
I spent time in jail, and since I was considered non-violent, I was put in a block of mostly sexual offenders. You can never totally believe most people about what they tell you in jail, but I was shown court papers that outlined the exact offense. I was housed with a 25 year old kid that had been in jail since he was 18. Factually, his offense was having sex with his girlfriend, 15 at the time. She was 2 months younger than would be legal, but that made little difference. He was sentenced to 7-10 years. He was paroled when he was 23, but was violated because his old girlfriend, the previously 15 year old girl but now 19, came to visit him at his house. Her parents called police, and he was ordered to serve the rest of his sentence of 10 years. She was legally old enough to make the decision, but his violation was against her, so the judge ordered him to stay away from her after he was paroled. She wasn't ordered to stay away from him though.
The law is black and white for a reason, but what sounds good at the time may not really work in reality. I'm now 34. I date women that are between 25 and 30 almost exclusively. I would be jailed if I were between 9 and 14 years younger. When I was 22, I dated a 17 year old, 2 months from being 18. Had I not waited a few months to get intimate, I would have been guilty of committing a crime. There should be laws, and those laws cannot be ambiguous for equal protection reasons, but there should be a bit more judicial discretion. Why is a "girl" that is 17 years 10 months old incapable of making a decision that a "woman" 2 months older is? They need a "Best interests of the child" type option in this case, but it won't happen because it's much easier to challenge criminal law than family law, and it would quickly be overturned.
Legislators feel they must make laws to justify their jobs. I would actually love to vote for someone who wants to get rid of laws, or even wants to sit on his ass. Redundant laws are useless and leave more space for overzealous prosecutors to abuse laws in order to punish people who may not deserve it.
People wanted more gun laws in the wake of Columbine, but those kids already violated 27 laws, some of which would have given the death penalty for an adult. Why do we need more laws when the ones already in place are restrictive enough to put people to death for and still didn't work.
May 29th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
The argument that the girl was responsible for producing child porn in the first place is spurious.
The main purpose of child pornography laws is to protect children from being exploited by adults. It is not to guarantee that no-one else is ever subjected to images of minors. So if a minor chooses to take photos of herself of her own free will, there is no reason that the law should apply here.
To apply child porn laws to this situation would be like charging someone with attempted murder if they try to commit suicide. Or charging someone with assault if they harm themselves.
It's a stupid pedantic argument that is barely worth my time in responding.
I agree that we should not be overzealous in applying child porn laws to these kinds of adolescent antics. If the boy was charged with merely being in possession of child porn this would be an outrageous misuse of the law. But when you post images on an internet forum where many other people can access them (including maybe older adults trawling the net for underage pictures), then the law needs to step in.
There is also a need to remind people that you cannot simply post anything online without any legal consequences.
May 29th, 2008 at 11:50 pm
Bernie Misiura Says:
May 29th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Let us not forget because of what this kid did he now will not be eligible to adopt or work with children.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And this is unfortunate. But instead of using this as a reason not to charge the boy with anything, it points to the need for better classification of sex offenders.
IMO, only more serious offenders should be placed on sex offeders' registers. One child porn offence committed at a young age does not justify the stigma of being a registered sex offender for the rest of one's life.
May 30th, 2008 at 12:52 am
Attention all parents:
Get your sons out of America as fast as you can.
We have too many incompetent, loser, unemployable twits in our state and local governments.
These whackos are strangling our country, starting with your sons.
May 30th, 2008 at 1:53 am
Pankaj,
I didn't say that I WOULD not be charged in the scenario I illustrated. I said that I SHOULD not be charged.
What I meant was that in a sane world I would not be charged. But in today's environment of ultra paranoia about sexual abuse I no doubt would be charged.
May 30th, 2008 at 2:03 am
[Re-submitting comment]
John Says:
May 29th, 2008 at 10:26 am
I read an article about this, apparently the boy was given the chance to remove the pictures:
*When contacted by police about the two images, Phillips, 17, balked at removing the pictures of the girl. Warned that he could face jail for publishing images of the minor, Phillips told an investigator, "Fuck that, I am keeping them up,"*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If this is true, then I would say the insolent s*** deserves all he gets.
Normally the police would never grant such courtesies to anyone caught disseminating images like this. He should have been grateful for the opportunity to rectify the situation without any legal consequences.
May 30th, 2008 at 3:58 am
Nick, you forget - that as a minor, the law does not recognize her free will. It becomes her guardian's responsibility. As for her not producing child porn - problem solved. Then what are you going to charge the boy on? If the material is not child porn, it can at best be deleted by myspace.com and that is it. Either her pictures were child porn or they were not. It is preposterous to apply the principle of child porn laws in here, to either parties - but if someone goes to the level, it should apply to both sides.The fact is the girl took her privacy and made it public. If those images were stolen or taken without her consent, i would be a 100% with prosecuting the boy, but they were not. BTW, for pornography to be pornography, you do not need exploitation. Of course applying that to parties who cannot consent to it (children), is what makes child pornography much more unethical and hence illegal.
May 30th, 2008 at 4:30 am
Pankaj,
I don't have time to respond more fully now, but I'll just say a couple of things.
This issue is not whether or not the images are porn (of course they are). The point is that given that these images are porn, people are liable if they disseminate them.
As I said, the sole purpose of child pornography laws is to protect children from exploitation. The idea that these laws should be applied to minors who are only taking pictures of themselves is beyond ludicrous.
I am not going to debate this point a million times over. It's a stupid argument. If you can't see that, that's not my problem.
May 30th, 2008 at 4:54 am
Pankaj Says: The fact is the girl took her privacy and made it public.
Doc Says: No - the girl did not make it public. The boy made the images public.
If you send me your picture, you are not making your picture public. You are merely sharing something with me. If however, I post your picture on the Internet - with or without inappropriate comments - I am the one that took your picture public,and without your consent. I therefore have legal culpability for my actions.
The girl has no legal culpability here. The boy does. More so would be the moral culpability - but that is an entirely different issue.
Doc
May 30th, 2008 at 6:59 am
Pankaj, check this out. Not everyone thinks we are making "ludicrous, pedantic" arguments about this girl having legal culpability.
http://news.cnet.com/Police-blotter-Teens-prosecuted-for-racy-photos/2100-1030_3-6157857.html?tag=nefd.top
May 30th, 2008 at 7:37 am
She made her nude pictures public when she sent them to his email. Emails are not secure sites and are public. He did not break the law since she took the pictures of herself and made them public first.
The girl herself should be charged with child pornography and contributing to the delinquency of a minor (if they must charge someone) since she took the pictures and sent them over the internet TO A MINOR boy. Shameless hussy!
May 30th, 2008 at 11:19 am
It's a stupid law in the first place. But stupid is as stupid does. See Chris D's link at 6:59.
Yep. I remembered hearing about that case. Thanks for finding it and submitting it as a point in this debate.
That was one of the arguments in the Florida case.
May 30th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
This whole thing has turned into a witch hunt. Laws that were originally passed to protect children from adults are now being abused by DA's who pander to parents whom are overprotective of their daughters. Politicians, DAs, and judges all need to get re-elected. An easy way to buy votes is to promise parents that they'll throw anyone in jail who even thinks about sticking their penis in their precious daughter [but not son]. For as long as possible, in any way possible. It's not about law & order, and it's sure as hell not about "protecting the children". It's all about getting re-elected by pandering to a small minority that constitutes a disproportionately large amount of people who bother to vote; even if getting those votes means trampling on other peoples lives and civil rights.
May 30th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Doc,
Actually she did. Think about it this way - when was the last time people accused of being indecent to minors - eg. sending inappropriate images to children, have successfully used the defence that the pictures were private and hence are not admissible in court as evidence without explicit permission from themselves?
Once you hand off anything to anyone - unless they are bound by law (or ethics) or a contract to not publicize it - you are pretty much giving it away to everyone.
May 31st, 2008 at 1:05 am
Chris D Says:
May 30th, 2008 at 6:59 am
Pankaj, check this out. Not everyone thinks we are making "ludicrous, pedantic" arguments about this girl having legal culpability.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris,
there are plenty of other people out there who enjoy stupid pedantic arguments. So what?
In this case, the only thing the girl is legally responsible for is her decision to send the photos to him. If the boy was traumatised by seeing these unsolicited photos, then by all means sue her. From then on, the boy was responsible for his decision to publish child porn.
The whole point about child porn laws is to protect minors from abuse. If a minor is merely producing images of themselves, there is no danger of any other minor being used except the person taking the shots. So there is no issue. But once someone sends photos of a minor other than themselves, it becomes a different issue.
It is ludicrous to suggest that the law should make no distinction between a minor transmitting images of themselves and a minor transmitting images of another minor. This is like saying that the law should make no distinction between a person who self-harms and a person who assaults another. Or that the law should treat suicide and murder exactly the same.
It is a stupid childish argument. Anyone who wishes to be taken seriously would be well-advised to quit it.
May 31st, 2008 at 1:17 am
Pankaj,
It makes no difference how the boy came about these images. Once he chose to send or reproduce these images, he became legally complicit in the transmission of child porn.
Of course the girl took a foolish and risky decision in sending them in the first place. The boy was not responsible for receiving them. But he is responsible for what he did afterwards.
Even if the girl was technically guilty for sending the images in the first place (itself a questionable claim), there is a big difference between sending the images to one person and posting them on a forum where many people can access them. It is not unusual for prosecutors to ignore a minor offence in the interests of prosecuting a more serious offence.
May 31st, 2008 at 1:29 am
The problem with this whole debate is that too many people here want to engage in partisan barracking, by simply finding any excuse to side with the male party.
One of the reasons why feminists have become so intellectually bankrupt and destructive is because they indulge in too much partisan barracking. They simply side with women on any issue without considering the underlying principles or being consistent. We should avoid falling into the same trap.
As far as double standards go, I believe the same principles should apply. If a girl had posted similar pictures of an underage boy, and even refused to remove them after a police warning, then by all means throw the book at her.
It would be interesting to see what the responses would be from everyone else here if the roles were reversed.
May 31st, 2008 at 2:02 am
Nick S Says:
May 31st, 2008 at 1:29 am
The problem with this whole debate is that too many people here want to engage in partisan barracking, by simply finding any excuse to side with the male party.
Doc Says: Valid observation and critique.
Doc
May 31st, 2008 at 7:24 am
Nick S Says:
"there are plenty of other people out there who enjoy stupid pedantic arguments. So what?"
"It is a stupid childish argument. Anyone who wishes to be taken seriously would be well-advised to quit it."
Well, Nick S, your tone is really snobby. You come off like you're better than everybody.
I did a little tabulating. At the time of this post, there are 26 different posters along this thread (including you and I). 14 of them (54%) have made comments that support my view. So, when you insult me by saying my thoughts are "stupid" and "childish" you insult the 14 others as well. So, here is the list of people you think are dumb-dumbs:
Lewis
Bernie Misiura
David M
Dave
Chris_C
Bill C
Mr. Bad
Tim Murray
slwerner
Pankaj
Demonspawn
Celia
CG
Richard
Way to go champ. You're a real winner.
May 31st, 2008 at 9:12 am
Chris,
As the old saying goes, if you are in a hole it is best to stop digging.
Of all those people you list as supporting you, how many have stuck around on this thread to support you and attack me? Why do you think they have bailed, Chris? I suspect that most of them have probably realised that they don't have a particularly strong case, so it's not worth looking foolish by continuing such a losing argument. You're the only one who wants to continue flogging a dead horse.
For what it's worth, I don't think that most of the people you listed are dumb dumbs. I understand that occasionally smart people resort to bad arguments without properly considering the flaws. The difference is that when I pointed out the obvious fallacy, most of them didn't continue arguing with me for the sake of it.
I don't really care if most people on this thread support you on this. I'm not here to be loved by everyone, or to blow smoke up people's tailpipes. If others resort to silly arguments, I won't be backward in saying so. I've had my fair share of disagreements with others here, and most of us are usually fairly thick-skinned and will get over it.
Instead of actually arguing the merits of the case, you simply resort to saying 'other people agree with me, so I must be right'. This is a particularly childish form of argument. Okay, so you've got more friends on the playground than me. You must be right then!
May 31st, 2008 at 9:28 am
Doc,
It's not that often that we agree on much, but thanks for your comments.
I kind of enjoy these debates, as it makes me look more moderate by taking on more radical views.
May 31st, 2008 at 11:03 am
Nick S, Chris D et al...
The young man in this story is being charged with possession of child pornography. This charge defines the material he possessed. By definition the girl involved must be responsible for the production of child porn. The material cannot be defined as not being child porn while in the possession of one individual but somehow magically change it's status to actually being child porn in the possession of another. That is an absurd and illogical scenario.
Either both should be charged or neither.
Nick...
Have you kept up with the Bill Henson brouhaha in Sydney this past week? One soft focus nude girl gets him shut down but we can get as many nude boys as we like at the local library. Have you tried going within a mile of a swimming pool with a camera recently? The western world is getting too much sugar I reckon. It's like the entire population has red cordial disease and now operates with a collective IQ in the negatives. "Children" influencing or even making absurd rules to "protect" children.
...
I kind of enjoy these debates, as it makes me look more moderate by taking on more radical views.
LOL.
May 31st, 2008 at 11:32 am
Nick S, you are really snobby.
You said:
"Of all those people you list as supporting you, how many have stuck around on this thread to support you and attack me? Why do you think they have bailed, Chris?"
"The difference is that when I pointed out the obvious fallacy, most of them didn't continue arguing with me for the sake of it."
VI've had my fair share of disagreements with others here, and most of us are usually fairly thick-skinned and will get over it."
1) Alot of people on here don't have time to keep posting over and over. They have jobs, families, etc....
I have time because I have a lame social life and I work from home. Not sure why you have time.
2) You don't get to tell people when to stop making their arguments just because you think they are wrong.
3) I am, admittedly, not thick skinned and have not "gotten over it". But, you are a piece of work to call me out on that
as you make your 9th post in our ongoing feud. You just look goofy being hypocritical like that.
May 31st, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Nick S:
I'm not picking only on you Nick, Chris and many others don't see this properly either.
I think there is another argument here, and everyone knows I have the ability to root out male sexism against women masquerading as intelligent debate as you are professing to be doing. I see it here too, but I think you are taking a bit more extreme view than necessary too.
Disseminating child pornography, and especially over the internet now days is also a crime, and it's not just a crime because it exploits children. The people who would look at those images are more likely to commit crimes against children. Feeding their fantasies with pornography only makes the problem worse. Eventually, the more images they see, the more desensitized they become to them until they have to take the next logical step. No, I'm not saying that pornography causes people to rape and murder people, so lets not get into that.
Laws against distributing pornography are tougher than laws about posession for a good reason. This boy did both, but is only being charged with posession. The girl did both, and even if we cede the point that a child can't be charged with posession of their own pornography, she should be charged with distributing child pornography because that's a crime that damages other people. Imagine a 12 year old girl that decided to make a website of herself. All the pictures are only of her in various provocative poses, and she charges people 15 dollars a month to see them. Is she guilty of a crime even though she just "shared" the pictures with a known group of people? Absolutely!!!
Now, the idea that a person can't be charged with posession of child pornography when it is of themselves is totally wrong. That's the reason we need to be careful of what laws we enact. Laws don't have their own mind. They can't change their mind about what they proscribe or permit based on individual situations. They are black and white and apply equally to everyone. If they didn't, they would be illegal laws. I understand the argument that a law that prosecutes the girl would be overbroad, but I doubt the legislators even thought about this situation. They likely never discussed it, otherwise there would be a caveat protecting the girl. Since there is not, she is just as guilty if she were to go to court. That's the reason there is something called "prosecutorial discretion." Prosecutors have the right to decide who to bring charges against based on the circumstances. The prosecutor decided not to charge her, and might have been right to do so, but that doesn't mean the law isn't overbroad. What happens in a different city or county when the prosecutor decides to charge her and not him?
In summation, she's guilty under the law just as he is. Prosecutorial discretion abrogates her guilt, and not his. The law is not there just to protect the individual children in the pictures, but the moral fiber of the community, and the law might be overbroad if it would make a person guilty of a crime if they just take pictures of themself and don't broadcast them in any way.
May 31st, 2008 at 9:16 pm
Timm Says: The people who would look at those images are more likely to commit crimes against children. Feeding their fantasies with pornography only makes the problem worse. Eventually, the more images they see, the more desensitized they become to them until they have to take the next logical step.
Doc Says: Balderdash. Your next sentence further demonstrates the folly of that statement: No, I'm not saying that pornography causes people to rape and murder people, so lets not get into that. So then, what are you saying?
Timm Says: she should be charged with distributing child pornography because that's a crime that damages other people.
Doc Says: Would be interesting to know your line of thinking of how this is possible.
Timm Says: Imagine a 12 year old girl that decided to make a website of herself. All the pictures are only of her in various provocative poses, and she charges people 15 dollars a month to see them. Is she guilty of a crime even though she just "shared" the pictures with a known group of people? Absolutely!!!
Doc Says: Your definition of "shared" does not apply because she has engaged in a commercial enterprise. At that point she could be labeled as either just a plain entrepreneur, a pronorgrapher, or a slut entrepreneur. She isn't "sharing". She is selling.
Timm Says: Now, the idea that a person can't be charged with posession of child pornography when it is of themselves is totally wrong.
Doc Says: Using your logic, then could a child looking at themselves in a mirror whilst nude could then also be prosecuted for viewing child pornography. Or, the members of a nudist community who even look at an underage child could also be charged with viewing child pornography.
Timm Says: I understand the argument that a law that prosecutes the girl would be overbroad, but I doubt the legislators even thought about this situation. They likely never discussed it, otherwise there would be a caveat protecting the girl.
Doc Says: This ties in nicely with your admission: I have the ability to root out male sexism against women masquerading as intelligent debate which then ties in nicely with Nick's previous statement: The problem with this whole debate is that too many people here want to engage in partisan barracking, by simply finding any excuse to side with the male party..
Timm Says: The law is not there just to protect the individual children in the pictures, but the moral fiber of the community,
Doc Says: The impetus behind child pornography laws is primarily to protect children from exploitation. The so called "moral fiber of the community" is virtually non-existent. If that were the case, then all images of people either naked or even partially naked could be determined to be working against the "moral fiber of the community."
Timm Says: the law might be overbroad if it would make a person guilty of a crime if they just take pictures of themself and don't broadcast them in any way.
Doc Says: That is about the only thing that you stated that all can agree with.
Ultimately, the girl is culpable only for stupidity, by taking her own pictures and giving them to another minor child. The boy's culpability is stronger and boarders on criminal activity when he published the photos. If he had taken the pictures off from his MySpace account, the case would have been closed. However, he insisted on leaving them up, which creates his biggest problem.
The only argument concerning the boy that I can agree with is that he should not be required to register as a sex offender. Even though he most likely had a few sessions of self gratification over the photos, that would be considered to be a normal thing for someone his age and is not an indication of any sexual deviance. Every male on this forum has engaged in self gratification utilizing photographs in one form or another so please spare us all your indignation at that statement.
Doc
June 1st, 2008 at 4:34 am
First of all, I was speaking to the actual law, not the premise of the law. The law makes it illegal for anyone to posess such images, and therefore illustrates that it is overbroad.
Second, as for whether or not pornography of children is different than adult pornography, you don't seem to realize that there is a difference all around in how a child is taken compared to an adult. Children are usually not going to argue much with their abusers. They look at adults as authority figures, and teachers. Adults are different. They know what it's all about usually, and are not usually going to be taken advantage of in that way without saying something. Rape of an adult is not the same as rape of a child, and therefore the leap between the fantasy and the act is not as extreme. Children are conditioned to do what adults tell them, adults aren't.
Lastly,
What is the difference other than money changing hands? She is the one giving out her pictures. Let's say she wasn't getting money for them. If she decides she's going to send out her picture to everyone in her contact list, does that mean she has done nothing illegal? What if it's her and her friend taking nude pictures of themselves together? Is she guilty of posessing then since there's another girl in the picture? It's against the law no matter how it's looked at, and that's not so much a problem with the girl, boy, or anyone else as it is a problem with the law.
Anyway Doc, it seems that we agree on the law being overbroad, and that's what I am trying to illustrate. I don't say the girl should be guilty of posessing the pictures, but I do think a girl, not the one in the story btw, should be hel responsible for distributing pictures even of herself. I don't know if you're arguing with me because you feel I'm wrong, or if you just want to argue a point more whether or not we were actually disagreeing.
June 1st, 2008 at 8:43 am
Timm,
I don't know where you got the quote from that you attribute to me, but I didn't post that.
June 1st, 2008 at 9:15 am
Gwallan,
In this particular case, I agree that the boy should not have been charged with being in possession of child pornography. The girl freely sent him the pictures. That particular charge was wrong.
But on the second matter of transmitting child pornography, he was guilty in publishing the images online. So I think that charge should stick.
"The material cannot be defined as not being child porn while in the possession of one individual but somehow magically change it's status to actually being child porn in the possession of another. That is an absurd and illogical scenario.
Either both should be charged or neither."
As I said, this is not the issue. It is not a question of whether the images are porn or not (of course they are). The point is that once it is clear that an image is child porn people become responsible for how they deal with it.
The whole point about child porn laws is to protect children from being misused. So if a minor is merely producing pictures of themselves, they are not being misused by another person. So there is no issue. But once someone starts reproducing images of a minor other than themselves, it is a whole different issue.
The point is that minors are not responsible for sexualising themselves under the law. However, others are responsible if they exploit minors sexually. Take age-of-consent laws, for example. If someone who is under the age of consent has sex, the under-age party is not guilty of anything. Why? Because the law is not there to control them sexually. It is there to stop others abusing them. Same with child porn laws. If a minor freely chooses to sexualise themselves, they are not guilty of anything. But if others choose to exploit their sexuality (such as posting images online without permission) it becomes a different matter.
The whole point about this debate (or so I thought) is that we should not be overzealous about applying child porn laws to adolescent antics. If a few teens want to send these sorts of photos to each other, by all means let's leave the law out of it. But when someone chooses to post these pictures online to a wider audience in a deliberate attempt to humiliate another, then that is a different matter.
June 1st, 2008 at 9:28 am
"Timm Says: Now, the idea that a person can't be charged with posession of child pornography when it is of themselves is totally wrong.
Doc Says: Using your logic, then could a child looking at themselves in a mirror whilst nude could then also be prosecuted for viewing child pornography. Or, the members of a nudist community who even look at an underage child could also be charged with viewing child pornography."
Or to apply the same logic you could say that if a child touches themselves or masturbates, they should be charged with indecent assault of a minor.
The argument seems to be that when it comes to issues of child abuse, it makes no difference whether the alleged abuser is another person or the child themselves.
Seriously guys, this is such a braindead argument.
June 1st, 2008 at 9:40 am
Re: Bill Henson
Gwallan,
Yeah I have followed the case of the Bill Henson exhibition. It is hard not to follow it at the moment.
I think it is probably debatable as to whether or not the pictures of his are pornographic or not. I guess it's a borderline case, not an open-and-shut case. Personally, I find a lot of the images creepy.
You are right that when it comes to these issues, there is a massive double standard. Germaine Greer produced a book of nude boys, and yet I don't recall her being charged with anything.
June 1st, 2008 at 9:58 am
Timm says "I think there is another argument here, and everyone knows I have the ability to root out male sexism against women masquerading as intelligent debate as you are professing to be doing. I see it here too, but I think you are taking a bit more extreme view than necessary too."
I don't really claim to be that perceptive in rooting out male sexism against women parading as intelligent debate here. I'm sure many others would be able to see it.
It would be interesting to see what would happen if the roles were reversed, and the girl had posted images of a boy in revenge for the boy dumping her and seeing someone else.
No doubt many posters would say that this just proves what a bunch of vindictive bitches women are. LOL.
The problem with this debate is that too many people have simply used this as a forum to vent many other legitimate grievances about double standards that favour women, without actually considering the facts of this particular case.
June 1st, 2008 at 11:06 am
I agree that niether of them should be charged, for sending the pictures, OR posting them. As I said before, she first posted them publicly when she sent them to his email.
The entire thing (as a lot of cases like this concerning teens) is being blown way out of proportion. He should not be charged with anything since she took the pictures of herself then sent them. Neither one is a victim here.
June 1st, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Nick S.,
You're right, and I appologize. That was a quote Doc made right after yours. I guess my brain just got the two posts stuck together.
June 1st, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Nick you seem to believe that production of child pornography is not a crime.
"So if a minor is merely producing pictures of themselves, they are not being misused by another person."
Correct, but - they still violated the law. They will not be held responsible by virtue of being minors. So the boy, who is also a minor, shall also not be held responsible, since he is a minor too. Then posting the images on the web - is exactly analogus to her sending her pictures to him. Like I said, when you send out something to someone without explicit contract or agreement of confidentiality you are basically sending it out to everyone. Did the girl know this - no. Did the boy know this - even after the warning - not really.
Whatever charges are brought up against the boy ought to be brought against the girl. Then she needs to face the charge of producing child pornography - if in fact what she produced was pornography and not just nudity shots. You cannot say its pornography for the boy and not pornography for her (the producer not her the participant). The -graphy- part of it makes it explicit and hence a child looking at her/himself in the mirror is not pornography.
Think of it this way - if her 16 year old boyfriend had taken these pictures, would you hold him accountable? Yes, then you cannot extend special privileges to her and ought to charge her with production of child pornography.
June 1st, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Pankaj says "Nick you seem to believe that production of child pornography is not a crime"
No, I believe that when one person does something to themselves it is not the same as another person doing it to them. You guys seem to believe differently.
"Think of it this way - if her 16 year old boyfriend had taken these pictures, would you hold him accountable? Yes, then you cannot extend special privileges to her and ought to charge her with production of child pornography."
If her boyfriend took photos of her, then technically he may be guilty. But I would not see the need to charge him. Unless he posted them online or gave them to a lot of people, I would not see a problem.
I have addressed the arguments as to why he should be charged but not her a million times over. I shouldn't have to rehash it over and over again. Every time I discredit this argument, instead of addressing my arguments someone fires back the same obtuse assertion 'Nick, if he is guilty then so is she'. This is getting very tedious. I think the blog rule about people who carp endlessly on tiny points should apply here.
June 1st, 2008 at 8:12 pm
Nick S said:
"Every time I discredit this argument, instead of addressing my arguments someone fires back the same obtuse assertion"
Pankaj and others are addressing your argument. We disagree with you. Nick S, you come off like you are the great tribal elder or something. Sitting on your elevated panel, you watch the fray amongst the commoners. Finally, amongst a reverent silence, you relay the counsel's decision. Get over yourself already. People are free to disagree with you.
June 1st, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Chris,
No-one here is addressing my arguments. I have explained countless times why he should have been charged but not her. But instead of actually responding to these arguments or explaining why I am wrong, people keep making the same bald assertion. This is not addressing the argument.
Of course people are free to disagree with me. But if people keep stubbornly repeating a stupid argument, don't expect to be congratulated for it.
If you lead with your chin, don't complain if you get a broken jaw. Chris, you came here with a weak lame-o argument. Then when you come off second best, you want to feel hurt and bitter about it.
Get over it.
June 1st, 2008 at 8:46 pm
Oh Nick S,
You're so awesome. I wanna be just like you when I grow up...lol
June 1st, 2008 at 10:40 pm
Ah Chris. You are finally coming around. :-)
Doc
June 1st, 2008 at 11:03 pm
Ahh....Doc....one half of the Ego Brothers (aka the stooge of Nick S). Okay, Im gonna teach you a new word today. That word is sar-ca-sm. It is spelled S-A-R....okay, got it so far? S-A-R-C, as in cat, A-S-M. See, sometimes people say things, but they really mean the opposite. I know it sounds a little weird. Let me give an example, okay? Okay, pretend your mommy wants you to take a bath. You don't really feel like taking a bath right then. So, you say something like, "Great mom, thanks alot". Now, you don't really mean thanks alot, do you? No, you are saying the opposite to get out your feelings that you really don't feel like taking a bath. When you say things in that way, that is called, sar-ca-sm. Do you understand? Okay, great. You're doing really well.
June 2nd, 2008 at 12:30 am
Nick, I agree with you. She should not be charged. I don't know if I like the idea of him being charged for posessing the pictures. Distributing the pictures is where he caused the harm. My arguments earlier though speak to the fact that I have not seen any child pornography law that addresses age other the age of the subject of the pictures.
Chris, she did not want the pictures to be seen by the world, just her boyfriend. If we get rid of the idea of admiralty law and stick with where this is, common law, you have to have a victim in order for there to be a crime. When she sent the pictures, there was no victim, unless for some strange reason her boyfriend didn't want to see them. When he posted the pictures, not only was he being vindictive, he was victimizing the girl. I'm not sure that he should be charged with child pornography charges, considering the life long consequences. I would imagine there is something far less extreme than the charge they gave him that would be a more appropriate punishment, and I would support that. My guess is that he will get an attorney and the charge will be plead down to something less drastic.
Now, I'm done here. It seems Chris is the only person arguing on the side of charging the girl, and he's gone into ad hominem land. Intelligent debate is one thing, belittling comments are another.
June 2nd, 2008 at 1:15 am
Nick,
Its not up to you to interprete the law and be glad that it is so. The boyfriend will be charged even if he did not give it to anyone, but is found with it. Eg. if his computer is scanned by teachers or someone and they locate those pictures on it. And he should be charged, regardless of how many people he distributed the pictures to. If you did not know, possession of child pornography is a crime too.
But that is beyond the point. Point is if it had been a boy, he would have been charged with production of child pornography, possession and distribution of it. Its because its a girl that she has gotten away with it. Sentencing discount at its height.
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:02 am
Timm and Pankaj,
I agree that he should not have been charged with possession of child porn, but he should have been charged with transmitting the images. It was not his fault that she sent him the images. But it was vindictive and wrong of him to post them online.
Pankaj, of course there are a lot of double standards in the legal system that tend to favour females. Especially when it comes to sexual offences females tend to be treated more leniently. But if a girl posted these pictures of a boy, I would recommend the same punishment.
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:29 am
Chris,
Having comprehensively lost the argument, you have chosen to stick around and display your pique (if you don't know what it means, you'll have to look it up on Wikipedia).
I know you were being sarcastic when you said that you want to be just like me, but there must be some part of you that wishes you could hold your own in a debate like this as well as I can.
I personally couldn't give a damn if not everyone on these forums likes me or thinks my arguments are valid. I've got a thick skin and don't have a fragile ego. But I suspect you need the approval of others more. I think you really wanted me to be impressed by your arguments, and your feelings were hurt when I dismissed them.
If you want, I could give you some coaching on how to debate effectively. Who knows, one day you might be able to debate these things as well as me.
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:46 am
OMG!! Nick S, you are SOOOOOOOOOO full of yourself buddy. I was responding to Doc about the sarcasm thing, too. Pay attention silly man. I do enjoy the approval of alot of people on here. There are alot of smart, caring posters. If the MRM is going to really help people, we have to be supportive and helpful. It matters not how bright you are or are not NIck S. If you are so selfish and egocentric, you are a liability in a team situation. Good day, lad.
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:41 am
Nick you seem to think that being vindictive is a sexual crime. Yes, the boy is guilty of that - precisely that and not bowing to the wishes of a female. Had he taken those pictures down on the warning from the police, he would not have been charged. What does that tell you his crime is?
But if there is a law against being vindictive, that should apply here. I doubt there is one. But to convict a person of a sex crime for being vindictive - especially child pornography is way beyond extreme. My argument is - if you want to be so extreme, fine - be equally extreme across both genders.
Why is she not charged with corrupting a minor or soliciting sex from a minor? Just because he did not complain, does not mean he is not victimized. In fact, in cases of child sexual abuse, the victim need not file a complaint, so why is there a need to file one here?
June 2nd, 2008 at 6:15 am
Some of these arguments favoring legal sanctions against the girl are getting both redundant and more ridiculous as time goes on.
Pankaj Says: Yes, the boy is guilty of that - precisely that and not bowing to the wishes of a female.
Doc Says: I have seen no evidence of the female expressing any wishes to the boy. The police - and maybe it was a female police officer for all anyone knows - did express a wish to the boy, which he did not "bow" down to. That is where the problems begin for the boy.
Pankaj Says: Had he taken those pictures down on the warning from the police, he would not have been charged. What does that tell you his crime is?
Doc Says: The police offered the kid a deal. He declined the deal. That does not mean that a crime had not been committed.
Pankaj Says: But if there is a law against being vindictive, that should apply here. I doubt there is one. But to convict a person of a sex crime for being vindictive - especially child pornography is way beyond extreme.
Doc Says: No, there are no laws against being vindictive. Vindictiveness is an emotion, which can not be legislated. However, what a person does when vindictive can be prosecuted.
In this case, the vindictive act involved child pornography. What actually constitutes child pornography appears to be more of a subjective determination rather than one with clearly defined determinations. It is up to the defense attorney to argue that the pictures do not constitute child pornography.
Pankaj Says: Why is she not charged with corrupting a minor or soliciting sex from a minor?
Doc Says: In legal terms, a minor cannot corrupt another minor. Hence, that charge cannot be made. As for her soliciting sex from a minor - sending nude photos to someone does not constitute a solicitation for sex. Any sexual relations that they may have had are immaterial at this point.
Pankaj Says: In fact, in cases of child sexual abuse, the victim need not file a complaint, so why is there a need to file one here?
Doc Says: Where does sexual abuse come into the picture? Showing someone a nude picture does not constitute sexual abuse. There is no need for a complaint because there is nothing to substantiate a complaint.
Doc
June 2nd, 2008 at 11:49 pm
Pankaj,
You are clutching at straws here and trying to nitpick around the edges. This issue is a complete no-brainer, but it seems that many posters here believe in argument for argument's sake.
Of course being vindictive is not a crime. But when deciding whether or not to prosecute someone, one of the things that needs to be considered is whether the person intended to or actually did harm anyone else. By sending photos of herself to her boyfriend, the girl was not harming anyone (unless the boy was traumatised by the sight of his naked girlfriend LOL). But when the boy decided to post the pictures in an attempt to humiliate her, he clearly intended harm to another person.
Even if the girl was technically guilty as well (itself a dubious claim) prosecutors still have some discretion to choose not to prosecute a minor or harmless breach of the law, while prosecuting a more serious or damaging offence. There is no obligation to prosecute every single offence, if it is minor or not deemed to be worth the resources. It's like saying that if someone is charged with a major heroin trafficking offence, then you can't let someone off for having a small amount of dope for personal use.
"Had he taken those pictures down on the warning from the police, he would not have been charged. What does that tell you his crime is?"
The police offered him a deal to resolve the issue and spare him being charged. He foolishly refused. So he then had to face the full force of the law.
"Yes, the boy is guilty of that - precisely that and not bowing to the wishes of a female"
This is a fairly silly cheap shot. No-one is suggesting that the boy should be punished for not pleasing a female. He's not being charged with not spending enough time with his girlfriend, not paying for dates, not opening doors etc.
The problem with this whole thread is that too many people simply want to push their own agendas and grievances, instead of objectively looking at the facts of this particular case. Only someone who has it in for the entire female population of the planet could seriously believe that there is some equivalence between what both parties did in this case.
June 3rd, 2008 at 6:02 am
Legislative intent has little effect on how a law is applied. As a judge recently told an attorney for a town I sued "I must apply the law as written not as you want it to be. Your motion is denied." In Indiana, by law, it is a felony to tell your child, under 14 years of age, to masterbate instead of having intercourse or to have intercourse after marriage or some other age like 18 years. The same applies to all people, even sex education instructors. Indiana, by law, only allows the teaching of abstinence for LIFE. I.C. 35-42-4-6(d)
June 3rd, 2008 at 6:37 am
Stuart Showalter: The judge was correct. Legislative intent is considered only at the appellate level to ascertain the constitutionality of a law or the application of a law.
As for your interpretation of I.C. 35-42-4-6(d - LOL. I can see where you might come up with that interpretation - but you would be on very shaky ground trying to have your interpretation applied.
Doc
June 5th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
Guaranteed method to reduce:
PUBLISH THE NAMES OF THE COPS AND PROSECUTORS! Public humiliation will solve much!
Please do the homework and publish! Anyone agree with me?
NYSteve
June 11th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
Nick S Says:
May 29th, 2008 at 11:50 pm
Bernie Misiura Says:
May 29th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Let us not forget because of what this kid did he now will not be eligible to adopt or work with children.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And this is unfortunate. But instead of using this as a reason not to charge the boy with anything, it points to the need for better classification of sex offenders.
IMO, only more serious offenders should be placed on sex offeders' registers. One child porn offence committed at a young age does not justify the stigma of being a registered sex offender for the rest of one's life.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
bottom line is he is NOT a sex offender
b
June 11th, 2008 at 10:21 pm
Nick S Says:
May 31st, 2008 at 9:12 am
Chris,
As the old saying goes, if you are in a hole it is best to stop digging.
Of all those people you list as supporting you, how many have stuck around on this thread to support you and attack me? Why do you think they have bailed, Chris? I suspect that most of them have probably realised that they don't have a particularly strong case, so it's not worth looking foolish by continuing such a losing argument. You're the only one who wants to continue flogging a dead horse.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Actually I went on vacation.
b
June 11th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
make that a well deserved and needed vacation, on my motorcycle
b
June 15th, 2008 at 2:06 am
I'm going to agree with doc and Nick S on one thing. The kid was an idiot, and he should have taken down the pictures when requested, but he refused. I however do not think he is guilty of distribution and promotion of child pornography. I think this for 2 reasons.
1. If we make the assumption that she is not of legal age to be legally culpable for sending the photo, than we must also make the assumption that he is not of legal age to be legally culpable for posting the picture on the internet. Its like saying that a man's judgment isn't impaired by alchohol but a woman's is. Doesn't work that way.
2. This is not what the law was intended to combat. It was not to punish men who end up on the losing end of a lover's quarrel. It was intended to stop exploitation of children by adults(not only men) by making child pornography.
Frankly Nick S, you make the argument that these posters are making any excuse to "side with the male party", well aren't you and Doc doing exactly the same with the female party by quoting the shadiest letter of the law with no regard to what that law was put in place for?
June 15th, 2008 at 2:11 am
i also dont see why he should register as a sex offender when he clearly isnt one. Hes just some stupid kid who got into a fight with his girlfriend. Sex offenders are people who kidnap children and have sex with them and then kill them or dump them somewhere. They aren't boys who post a racy photo on the internet of their ex girlfriend to get back at them.
he isn't a danger to children or anything of the sort. Sorry, but i see this as the law screwing up someone's life for no reason. And while i admit he is an idiot, and he was a dumbass to refuse to take the photo's down, but the punishment should fit the crime so to speak. Its like me hitting some dude at a bar one time and giving me 20 years in prison for assault.
June 17th, 2008 at 2:28 am
Sean says "Frankly Nick S, you make the argument that these posters are making any excuse to "side with the male party", well aren't you and Doc doing exactly the same with the female party by quoting the shadiest letter of the law with no regard to what that law was put in place for?"
Sean, I'm not sure if you read many of my posts here. But if you did it would be clear to you that I am not some chivalrous or feminist man. In about 90% of cases, I agree with the MRA position. So to suggest that I am somehow looking for any excuse to side with the girl and condemn the boy here is rather ludicrous.
Re point 1: The argument we were making was not simply that the girl is not responsible for her actions because she is underage. Obviously he is as well. The point is that the girl's actions were essentially victimless in sending photos of herself. The boy's actions clearly weren't. Normally for a crime to have occurred, there must be a perpetrator and a victim. So if a minor chooses to expose themselves or take photos of themselves, no other party is abusing the minor so there is no issue. But if another person chooses to transmit photos of the minor, it is a different matter entirely.
"Its like saying that a man's judgment isn't impaired by alchohol but a woman's is. Doesn't work that way."
This is hardly the same situation. If a man and a woman get drunk and have sex, there is a moral equivalence between the conduct of both of them. They are both engaging in consensual activity, and neither of them is doing something against the will of the other or attempting to harm the other.
When the boy decided to send photos of the girl online in an attempt to publicly humiliate her, his actions were entirely different in nature.
Re point 2: It may be true that when child pornography laws were drafted, the legislators did not have this sort of situation primarily in mind. But so what? If an individual chooses to do something out of revenge to an ex-partner, the law should apply to their actions just the same as anyone else. It begs the question, what other laws do you believe that should have exemptions for cases of lover's revenge?
If someone kills their partner during a relationship breakdown, do you say 'oh well, when the legislators drafted the homicide law they didn't really have this sort of thing in mind. They were thinking more along the lines of the outlaw who walks into a western bar and is involved in a shootout'?
As I said earlier, a lot of the posters here seem to be engaging in partisan barracking by simply looking for any excuse to side with the male party. It's true that there are a lot of double standards that tend to favour women. Generally female sex offenders are treated far more leniently by the legal system than male offenders are. But this particular case is not a good example of that, in that the boy's actions were clearly more serious than the girl's. Each case should be treated on its individual merits, rather than us simply saying 'males usually get the rough end of the stick, so we must side with the boy'. The problem is that too many posters simply want to project their own grievances without actually looking at the merits of this particular case.
There is a real danger that, in adopting this approach, we may end up creating another gender hate movement similar to the one we are fighting against.
June 17th, 2008 at 2:35 am
Sean,
On your second post. I agree that he should not be placed on a sex offenders register. He is clearly not a danger to society.
Only people guilty of more serious sex offences should be placed on a register. There are many people who are guilty of minor transgressions in their youth who end up on these registers and are labelled and marginalised for the rest of their lives.
June 17th, 2008 at 2:37 am
Bernie,
Welcome back. Actually I knew you were on vacation. I saw your bike cruise by on Route 66.
So I knew you would not be around to provide opposition :-)
September 20th, 2008 at 4:54 am
When they start prosecuting underaged girls for producing and distributing child porn for taking seductive, sugestive or nude photos of themseves, and giving them to their friends, I will support prosecuting boys for accepting the pictures. Until then, no way.
October 8th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
It cannot be a crime to receive child porn in your mailbox, electronically or otherwise. Without showing some kind of intent to participate or aquire that material.
Otherwise i could simply go to any place, like a Marriot hotel that has wifi. Sit in the lobby with my laptop and email every politician, including all members of congress, the excecutive branch, inlcuding all the members of the dept of justice which includes the fbi and all US prosecutors and the senate. And since it's a crime to receive it they would all have to be charged and consequently arrested (not sure who would arrest them as they would all be charged, incuding the police as they also received it)for felony charges of receiving child porn. I highly doubt allt hese leaders would be arrested.
December 20th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
This case is not very unique or outragious. It is just another garden variety case in which a person is being treated as a sexual predator for a mere mechanical violation of a statute in which there is not real victim in the traditional sense. on my sight I have a link to
a sight with alot of very freigtening scenarios and other links on this subject as well as lots of youtube videos.
I too am tireing of the notion that those who passively sit on their computers and find child porn are "suporting" the child porn industry, what industry could survive when people do not pay for it? I tell you what industry, the self produced, self published and self advertised porn industry that is all over the net available for men like this. There is most likely not a single victim of child exploitation in this case.
Imagine that the pleasure that these girls get from exhibiting themselves sexually on the internet and now think of all the pain of so many years in prison, I ask you who the hell are the real victims? The world is going insane with all this protect the children crap!
"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation." - Rabbi Daniel Lapin
The feds actually post URLs on the net enticing people to come look at child porn and then they pass a law with a ten year sentance for merely clicking on the URL!! We need to fight these bastards before they all have us registering as sex offenders for looking at a child more than a fraction of a second. You think this is a joke? Google on the words "visual agression laws new york"
January 2nd, 2009 at 8:25 pm
Can someone please explain to me how a 14 year old girl takes explicit pictures of herself with a cell phone. First of all, she must have a long arm and be a real good guess at aiming the cam.
January 5th, 2009 at 11:28 pm
At the age of 18 we don't become magically responsible, but with our parents guiding for those 18 years we have to act with discretion. He most certianly wouldn't be sexually involved with this girl in the middle of a towns crowded sidewalk. His upbringing is what is important. He should have Forwarded the email to the local police and followed their advice. Wrote the girl back saying that was totally inappropraite and told her to never send him pictures of that nature again or speak of sexually expliced emails. He would have protected himself and set her on the proper course