Teens charged for possession of child porn... of themselves...

[Nyokou]

Re: Teens charged for possession of child porn... of themselves...

Don't you just hate being underage?

[JKPolk]

Re: Teens charged for possession of child porn... of themselves...

I don't.

[ToshX]

Re: Teens charged for possession of child porn... of themselves...

Ugh, by these laws, I'd be jailed MANY times by now.

Really, this was stupid.

People have a private life. Let them have that life.

[Lamoc]

Re: Teens charged for possession of child porn... of themselves...

Arrest me now, i've seen my partner naked before we were over 18.

Its just stupid, people should be able to do whatever they want among themselfs.

When a parent takes a picture of thier naked baby/child, thats considered child pronography?

[FluorescentArmy]

Re: Teens charged for possession of child porn... of themselves...

I can't stand the spelling in this thread.

@Topic: It's their fault they got caught distributing the pictures. It's like the law with sodomy. You don't tell anybody about it and you're good.

[GuidoHunter]

Re: Teens charged for possession of child porn... of themselves...

Arrest me now, i've seen my partner naked before we were over 18.

When a parent takes a picture of thier naked baby/child, thats considered child pronography?

Do you read? At all? Do you have any capacity for reason? These have been answered already in this thread, not that you should have to read in order to understand why naked baby pictures aren't child porn.

The important part is the bolded part of what Kilga quoted.

Statutory rape laws and the like exist because kids are stupid and don't have good judgment.

It's illegal to take pictures of a child for good reason, and that's what this guy and girl did. Therefore, they get arrested. Makes perfect sense to me.

As for letting people do what they want in private, yes, I agree, but between consenting adults. As much as I want a hands-off-my-private-life government, there's no way that I'm going to condone homemade child pornography, and so long as the subject isn't an adult, he or she is still a child. Argue for lowering the age of adult-ness if you want, but you've no ground to stand on if you want to say child porn is okay so long as it's kept within the walls of the house.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Shashakiro]

Re: Teens charged for possession of child porn... of themselves...

Statutory rape laws and the like exist because kids are stupid and don't have good judgment.

Statutory rape laws don't punish the child. That has very little to do with this.

you've no ground to stand on if you want to say child porn is okay so long as it's kept within the walls of the house.

Uh, excuse me? I completely disagree with this, unless I'm reading it wrong. A whatever-year-old (I don't care what age they are) ought to be able to take whatever kind of pictures of themself that they want, so long as they keep them to themselves. If they were directly sending them to other people, that's one thing, but if they were keeping it private amongst themselves and someone else simply found it by prying around, it's absolutely stupid to punish them for it.

Also, laws that punish people who take advantage of the supposed poor judgment of a child are fine and make sense. Laws that punish children for their own supposed poor judgment are absolutely retarded and make no sense whatsoever.

[Kilgamayan]

Re: Teens charged for possession of child porn... of themselves...

People have a private life. Let them have that life.

Only if they're competent enough to keep it private, which these two kids obviously weren't.

[WarlockRox]

Re: Teens charged for possession of child porn... of themselves...

Statutory rape laws and the like exist because kids are stupid and don't have good judgment.

They're threre so that people don't take advantage of a stupid teenager. For example, a thirty year old man manipulating a fourteen year old girl into thinking she's in love with him, and then having sex with her.

It's illegal to take pictures of a child for good reason, and that's what this guy and girl did. Therefore, they get arrested. Makes perfect sense to me.

That reason is so sick perverts don't get hold of the pictures. If these pictures are just going to be between the two people, then what difference does it make? Honestly? Is it going to affect you, or anyone else if I (16) see a picture of X male friend that I have who is 17? No, it's not. It's only going to affect me.

As for letting people do what they want in private, yes, I agree, but between consenting adults. As much as I want a hands-off-my-private-life government, there's no way that I'm going to condone homemade child pornography, and so long as the subject isn't an adult, he or she is still a child.

Once again, what's the difference if things are kept between two people or a small group of people? Would you want me arrested, say, if I sent naked pictures of myself to a friend? (Not like anyone wants to see them, but hypothetically)

Argue for lowering the age of adult-ness if you want, but you've no ground to stand on if you want to say child porn is okay so long as it's kept within the walls of the house.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Kilgamayan]

Re: Teens charged for possession of child porn... of themselves...

stuff

Could you 100% guarantee that no one beyond the subject matter of your naked pictures would ever find/see them?

If your answer is yes (which anyone with an IQ above 80 would doubt), then you deserve to be exempt from such a law.

[WarlockRox]

Re: Teens charged for possession of child porn... of themselves...

Could you 100% guarantee that no one beyond the subject matter of your naked pictures would ever find/see them?

If your answer is yes (which anyone with an IQ above 80 would doubt), then you deserve to be exempt from such a law.

Well, in certain circumstances, yes, (Such as, showing the person a print picture, and then disposing of it [shredding, burning, etc]) but that's unlikely, since it's easier to send things over the web now, anyways.

I suppose I'm being fairly miopic about this. I'm just going to sit back and listen to what others have to say, now, since I can't really contribute anymore.

[Shashakiro]

Re: Teens charged for possession of child porn... of themselves...

Could you 100% guarantee that no one beyond the subject matter of your naked pictures would ever find/see them?

IMO, all that matters is intention. If the intention is clearly for it to be kept private, then the kids aren't responsible if someone finds them anyway. It should be the fault of whoever DOES find them, not the kids.

By the way, don't you guys see the double-standard here as at all ridiculous? These teens are supposedly don't have the required responsibility to know whether or not they should be taking these pictures, but they all of a sudden have to take responsibility for it when they display this lack of responsibility? How does this make sense to anyone?

[Kilgamayan]

Re: Teens charged for possession of child porn... of themselves...

IMO, all that matters is intention. If the intention is clearly for it to be kept private, then the kids aren't responsible if someone finds them anyway. It should be the fault of whoever DOES find them, not the kids.

So the next time you hit someone while driving drunk they should be punished for getting in the way of your car? It's not like you meant to run into them, and if they didn't have to be going somewhere that night they wouldn't have been in the way.

Of course, given your posting history at ODI I'm already pretty sure you don't think drunk driving should be illegal in the first place, so I don't know how good of a question this is to ask you in particular.

By the way, don't you guys see the double-standard here as at all ridiculous? These teens are supposedly don't have the required responsibility to know whether or not they should be taking these pictures, but they all of a sudden have to take responsibility for it when they display this lack of responsibility? How does this make sense to anyone?

It doesn't, because you're jumping a critical step.

Teens don't have the mental maturity to know about the required responsibilities for this kind of situation. The law jumps in and tells them what their responsibilities so there is no longer any excuse for not knowing what they can and cannot do. They go ahead and do it anyway. They get punished.

Does that make more sense?

[Shashakiro]

Re: Teens charged for possession of child porn... of themselves...

So the next time you hit someone while driving drunk they should be punished for getting in the way of your car? It's not like you meant to run into them, and if they didn't have to be going somewhere that night they wouldn't have been in the way.

When you drive drunk, you are very clearly and obviously endangering the public. When you are underage and take pictures of yourself for private purposes, you endanger no one unless they actively attempt to view the pictures. I don't see this as even close to analogous.

Then again, I'm unclear as to the details of the situation, specifically how exactly the pictures were found, so I'm not exactly sure about how it applies to this particular situation...I'm assuming that someone was rummaging through their email without their permission and came across it, or something like that, in which case I think the kids should be 100% blameless.

Of course, given your posting history at ODI I'm already pretty sure you don't think drunk driving should be illegal in the first place, so I don't know how good of a question this is to ask you in particular.

My posting history at ODI consists 99.9% (possibly 100%) of Stepmania comments, and I hate alcohol and will probably never get drunk as long as I'm alive. Stop confusing me with Skikamukazi.

It doesn't, because you're jumping a critical step.

Teens don't have the mental maturity to know about the required responsibilities for this kind of situation. The law jumps in and tells them what their responsibilities so there is no longer any excuse for not knowing what they can and cannot do. They go ahead and do it anyway. They get punished.

Does that make more sense?

I suppose. I still don't think it ought to be illegal in the first place if it's kept private, though.

[Kefit]

Re: Teens charged for possession of child porn... of themselves...

Why do people always bring up the "oh noes the pictures will get out to pedophiles" argument? Who cares about the pedophiles? The entire point of laws against child porn is to protect the child, not to prevent pedophiles from having a stimulus. Pedophilia may certainly be distasteful to many, but there are many distasteful stimuli that people are regardless legaly allowed to enjoy because the production of said stimuli hurts no one. This argument can be made legitimate if you instead worry about these pictures somehow encouraging the production of more child porn, but I don't think that is what most of you are worrying about.

On that note, this isn't pedophilia. It's not even ephebophila. I doubt many people could tell the difference between a naked 16 year old and a naked 18 year old, so these images would probably just end up grouped with a bunch of other perfectly legal 18+ nude images.

That being said, it sounds like these kids just got a slap on the wrist. Big whoop. Will teach them a lesson that they will probably never be able to use, since they will probably turn 18 soon anyway.