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

[PunkNJunk]

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

I have pictures of myself in the tub messing around with soap bubbles from when I was four.

going to jail brb

rofl

That's like saying that attempting suicide is punishable by death. Wtf? lol.

actually. the punishment i new york for attempted suicide is death.
atleast thats what i heard.

[Shashakiro]

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

There is no sense of accomplishment, unless you feel gratified when people waste their time reading what you've written and agree with it.

Bolded stuff is what I added. Well, you just finished that argument, although the reader can decide whether or not their time was wasted--not really up to you to judge what's a waste of time and what isn't.

Then write a better one! Oh wait, that isn't possible.

Like I told meiloyn, you don't have to like the law, but it's the best we have so complaining about it makes you look stupid because it implies that you'd rather have an inferior alternative.

My implicit suggestion is that the details of the law simply be changed to make what those kids did legal. No, I'm not qualified to ACTUALLY change it, but I'm certainly qualified enough to have an opinion about it, as is any thinking person. Essentially, all we're doing is complaining...and I see nothing wrong with complaining.

oh and

but the "better safe than sorry" assumption kicks in and errs on the side of caution.

Better abolish driving; after all, you could get in an accident and die.

I highly doubt that more than a very, very, very small percentage of 16-year-olds who take sexual photos of themselves are ever "emotionally scarred" by it later. In fact, I'd be massively surprised if that number was higher than the odds of the average driver getting killed in a car crash.

[lord_carbo]

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

What those of us who say this is ridiculous are saying is that it should be "It should be legal for them to photograph THEMSELF."

Maybe it's just me, but I wouldn't be surprised if 1/2 of all of the child pornography out there is taped or photographed by the kids who are doing it. Maybe even 2/3's.

[BigErnDawg]

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

he's right ya know....

[CypherToorima]

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

I have to go with Shash on this one. Kilgamayan, none of your arguements hold any water with me. Especially after reading you basically saying "I say my opinion is right and your opinion is wrong and because I am saying that, it is true and I am right and you are wrong and no one got anything out of your argument and people got everything out of mine because I say so. So in the end, you are wrong because I say so, and I say no one got anything out of your argument because I can speak for everyone because I say I can."

Then there is the "Well how do you know that they won't be emotionally scarred because they will some how magically know millions of pedos are masturbating to their pictures?" How will they know?

Which takes me to my next point. The e-mail was private, meant for their eyes only. So why should they be punished for someone else looking at those photos. They may have made them available (maybe, but not really), but they didn't force anyone to look at them. Seriously, that is basically punishing the child for being photographed by a pedo for letting themselves be available. Sure, being available might mean just being out in public and getting kidnapped, but who cares? That kid made his or herself available and they shouldn't have done that so they are getting punished.

In the end, if the pictures were made public, the person punished should be the person who made them truly public. As in got them out of that kid's e-mail box and posted them on the internet.

[lord_carbo]

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

So guido, is there a big "common sense" gap between 22 and 18? I'm beginning to see a trend, but maybe it's just me.

PS lol ad hominem remarks

PPS major irony ignore it plz

[PunkNJunk]

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

i lived in Florida for 13 years then i moved up here.
but yes i am Floridian.

[Kilgamayan]

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

My implicit suggestion is that the details of the law simply be changed to make what those kids did legal. No, I'm not qualified to ACTUALLY change it, but I'm certainly qualified enough to have an opinion about it, as is any thinking person. Essentially, all we're doing is complaining...and I see nothing wrong with complaining.

- Suggest a change to the law then. This is all I ask of anyone who says the current one is stupid. Do something about it! Otherwise you're just whining.
- Complaining is wrong when (a) you're doing it just for the sake of complaining (as you have admitted yourself when you said you ultimately didn't care), and (b) there isn't a better alternative.

Better abolish driving; after all, you could get in an accident and die.

I highly doubt that more than a very, very, very small percentage of 16-year-olds who take sexual photos of themselves are ever "emotionally scarred" by it later. In fact, I'd be massively surprised if that number was higher than the odds of the average driver getting killed in a car crash.

- Except motor vehicular transportation is far too important to today's society to completely remove. The removal of pornography would have a negligible impact. You will note, however, that underage driving is illegal as well, and I'm pretty sure providing a permit/license to someone underage is too.
- I highly doubt that more than a very, very, very small percentage of 16-year-olds who take sexual photos of themselves make them available to the general public. How many times have you heard of cases like this?

Then there is the "Well how do you know that they won't be emotionally scarred because they will some how magically know millions of pedos are masturbating to their pictures?" How will they know?

They may not know 100% for sure, but if they know the images got leaked then it's a really good bet a whole bunch of people are whacking themselves to it. Or maybe someone they know sees the images. What do you tell that person if you're those kids? Or what if someone likes the images so much he decides to seek these kids out and eventually finds them? How pleasant an experience is a stalker?

Which takes me to my next point. The e-mail was private, meant for their eyes only. So why should they be punished for someone else looking at those photos. They may have made them available (maybe, but not really), but they didn't force anyone to look at them. Seriously, that is basically punishing the child for being photographed by a pedo for letting themselves be available.

A man takes sexual photos of his four-year-old daughter. He keeps them on a folder buried deep in his computer. His wife happens to come across it one day. Under your theory, the man should not be punished because he never intended for the wife to see them.

Sure, being available might mean just being out in public and getting kidnapped, but who cares? That kid made his or herself available and they shouldn't have done that so they are getting punished.

These kids aren't getting punished for being the subject matter. They're being punished for being the photographers and (unwitting) distributors. I'm fairly sure I went over this already with the car accident example.

In the end, if the pictures were made public, the person punished should be the person who made them truly public. As in got them out of that kid's e-mail box and posted them on the internet.

So the family member who found those images on their computer should be arrested for reporting child pornography that wasn't theirs to the police?

[cute_pinay]

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

that's kind of retarded, but I don't blame 'em
that's none of our business, so why do we care exactly?

[CypherToorima]

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

About the father and the daughter: This is where intent should be brought into play. In this case, the daughter was probably harmed is some fashion, so yeah, the dad should be punished. Don't pull the "Well of one person does it one way, why can't he do it this way." People are smart enough to understand intent.

And of course whoever stumbled upon the pictures shouldn't be punished, unless they made them public. Don't be stupid.

Oh, I missed your first point. Well, if they are leaked, like I said, whoever made them public should be punished.

[Shashakiro]

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

Suggest a change to the law then.

Make it legal for people 16 or older to take and possess sexual pictures of themselves. Clear enough for you yet?

Complaining is wrong when (a) you're doing it just for the sake of complaining (as you have admitted yourself when you said you ultimately didn't care), and (b) there isn't a better alternative.

I wholeheartedly disagree. There's nothing whatsoever that's wrong with complaining when it isn't irritating and/or annoying, IMO. It's really only wrong when you're complaining TO someone who doesn't want to hear it.

Except motor vehicular transportation is far too important to today's society to completely remove. The removal of pornography would have a negligible impact.

My point was that it's ridiculous to assume that erring on the side of caution is always good thing. The question is: do the benefits of the freedom to take pictures of yourself outweight the potential negative impact that such a freedom might have on a 16-year-old vs an 18-year-old? I think it does, because the chance of there being a negative impact is, in my opinion, essentially negligible.

I highly doubt that more than a very, very, very small percentage of 16-year-olds who take sexual photos of themselves make them available to the general public. How many times have you heard of cases like this?

How is it relevant at all how frequently it happens?

They may not know 100% for sure, but if they know the images got leaked then it's a really good bet a whole bunch of people are whacking themselves to it. Or maybe someone they know sees the images. What do you tell that person if you're those kids? Or what if someone likes the images so much he decides to seek these kids out and eventually finds them? How pleasant an experience is a stalker?

All this is applicable to anyone 18 or above, too. The only question is how much more emotionally damaging such a situation would be to a 16-year-old than to an 18-year old. Again, personally, I think the difference is essentially negligible, keeping in mind that the 16-year-old WILLINGLY took these pictures.

A man takes sexual photos of his four-year-old daughter. He keeps them on a folder buried deep in his computer. His wife happens to come across it one day. Under your theory, the man should not be punished because he never intended for the wife to see them.

Completely different, because the father is exploiting the daughter in this case, so clearly he should be punished. In the case that this topic is actually about, no one is exploiting anyone.

So the family member who found those images on their computer should be arrested for reporting child pornography that wasn't theirs to the police?

Public != police. I assume the police didn't actually make the pictures public, since they aren't complete morons.

[Kilgamayan]

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

About the father and the daughter: This is where intent should be brought into play. In this case, the daughter was probably harmed is some fashion, so yeah, the dad should be punished. Don't pull the "Well of one person does it one way, why can't he do it this way." People are smart enough to understand intent.

People are smart enough to understand intent, yes, but you must know that "Well you know what I meant" never ever ever flies in a courtroom. The letter of the law must be followed exactly. Ambiguity is judicial suicide for this country.

Oh, I missed your first point. Well, if they are leaked, like I said, whoever made them public should be punished.

I'm glad you agree with me on this.

Make it legal for people 16 or older to take and possess sexual pictures of themselves. Clear enough for you yet?

All right, let's implement this. One day, two 15-year-olds decide to record themselves having sex and this situation happens all over again. Is this law still stupid? If so, where's the fix? If not, what makes 16 any different from 18?

My point was that it's ridiculous to assume that erring on the side of caution is always good thing. The question is: do the benefits of the freedom to take pictures of yourself outweight the potential negative impact that such a freedom might have on a 16-year-old vs an 18-year-old? I think it does, because the chance of there being a negative impact is, in my opinion, essentially negligible.

Unfortunately for you, the majority of the country seems to disagree.

This law seems to be built on the same general principle as what the country was founded on: "Your right to do does not outprioritize my right not to be done unto." Your right to yell ends at my ears, your right to throw a punch ends at the tip of my nose, etc. Obviously it's not the same thing (although I have a dreadful feeling that you're going to think I said it was and argue against that anyway) but the concept is similar. Person A's right to photograph themselves in sexual positions does not (apparently) outprioritize Person B's right to be protected from ruining themselves by photographing themselves in sexual positions without considering the consequences.

How is it relevant at all how frequently it happens?

Because your proposed event requires my proposed event to happen, and the sheer infrequency of mine makes yours basically negligible.

All this is applicable to anyone 18 or above, too. The only question is how much more emotionally damaging such a situation would be to a 16-year-old than to an 18-year old. Again, personally, I think the difference is essentially negligible, keeping in mind that the 16-year-old WILLINGLY took these pictures.

Legally, the 16-year-old was not sexually mature enough to understand what they were doing, so being a willing participant is irrelevant, as is whether they actually were sexually mature enough or not. Of course, you're now going to argue about how the legal-at-18 law is stupid and arbitrary, so I challenge you, again, to find a better guideline.

[Afrobean]

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

Oh yes they are. They have greater rational capabilities and greater understandings than a, say, six year old, but still very much inferior judgment than adults.

See the other thread for more on that.

Yeah, I definitely have much more judgment these past two years.

Actually, my judgment is exactly the same. Age is just an arbitrary number given to estimate maturity. The assumption is that by that age, people will be "mature". Certain people are "mature" a long time before age 18 and others never really "mature".

The point of my comment is that they're not children in any stretch of the word. Just because they're not legally adults does not mean that they're the same as a 5 year old, even if there is no difference when it comes to the law. Either way, this is untrue anyway. Laws do acknowledge a difference between 16 year olds and other younger minors (16 year olds can drive, can drop out of school, legal age of consent is 16 in some places).

Maybe it's just me, but I wouldn't be surprised if 1/2 of all of the child pornography out there is taped or photographed by the kids who are doing it. Maybe even 2/3's.

Who cares? Do you really think it was that child's intent to get their photo into a CP ring? Incredibly unlikely. That would mean that someone else would have to come across the photo of the child and THAT PERSON WOULD DISTRIBUTE IT. It would be that person who would be breaking the law, not the child.

This, of course, comes back to the article. The "children" in the photos did not distribute the photos. They shared them privately and these private photos somehow became not private.

I just can't get over how you guys are advocating punishing a child when the law was put in place to protect children.

and here comes the kilga quote hour!

The removal of pornography would have a negligible impact.

You can't be serious. Not only is the porn industry ****ing massive, but nearly everyone enjoys pornograhy at some point. How can you say a product which is used by nearly everyone would have a negligible impact if it were to be eliminated? I guess the point is irrelevent, as if all porn were illegal, it'd still be piss easy to get over file sharing networks, but really porn is very important to society.

You will note, however, that underage driving is illegal as well, and I'm pretty sure providing a permit/license to someone underage is too

Lots of people drive legally while underage, myself included. I would assume that you also drove before you were 18 as well.

Or maybe someone they know sees the images. What do you tell that person if you're those kids?

"WHAT THE **** YOU PAEDO STOP DOWNLOADING PICTURES OF KIDS YOU PERVERT! YOU BETTER ****ING STAY AWAY FROM MY KIDS YOU SICK ****."

Or what if someone likes the images so much he decides to seek these kids out and eventually finds them?

Yeah, I forgot that seeing an image of someone on the Internet instantly tells you the city they live in. Unless you mean a CP distribution club of sorts that meets in real life in the same city where the photo happened to have been taken. Anyway, it's irrelevent to the topic at hand, because we all agree that anyone actively distributing CP should be banned (lol). The thing we're disagreeing on is not actively distributing counting the same as distributing. Some of us say "well they didn't want it distributed so they shouldn't be treated as though they did" while others are saying "who cares they didn't take enough precautions for it not to be found by someone and being found by a single person is the same as actively distributing, even though if the image were to be actively distributed, it'd be by the single person who happened to find it."

Under your theory, the man should not be punished because he never intended for the wife to see them.

If that happened, he could be charged with owning child pornography and for abusing a child, but he did not distribute it, and that's what "children" in the article were in trouble for.

Ambiguity is judicial suicide for this country.

oh **** i guess the constitution ****ing killed us by being vague about powers **** damnit **** seriously holy **** i had no idea the country suicided back in the 1700s when they wrote the constitution and intentionally left things ambiguous

One day, two 15-year-olds decide to record themselves having sex and this situation happens all over again. Is this law still stupid? If so, where's the fix? If not, what makes 16 any different from 18?

Uh... 15 year olds aren't legally allowed to have sex. The article said that where they were, under 18 and over 16 were allowed to have sex with each other, and that's what happened here (16 and 17).

the majority of the country seems to disagree.

Yeah and the majority of the country is always right. I really don't want to go into a massive ****ing list of every single stupid thing that the majority of the country has done or supported, but I'll assume even you can compile a healthy list yourself.

As for "well if it sucks so bad you come up with a better law": How about adding "assuming that the person 'distrubuting' the child pornography did not distribute it on purpose and that the 'child' in the photograph took the photograph themself" to the end of it. Obviously though, random people on a message board for a flash simulator of a popular arcade dance simulator have no direct influence over laws.

Ok... I'm done now. Quoting lots of **** is ****ing annoying.

[bobby9001]

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

ya thats retarded im gonna go assault myself

[CypherToorima]

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

Oh, I missed your first point. Well, if they are leaked, like I said, whoever made them public should be punished.

I'm glad you agree with me on this.

Except I don't feel the children made them public.

So you are telling me someone broke into your house, and stole whatever and sold whatever, they they shouldn't be punished because you made those objects public by buying them. I mean, why should he punished for thievery since the objects were in the public anyways and if you randomly find something out in the street and pick it up, it isn't considered breaking the law