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

[MixMasterLar]

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

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)

???

I mean, yeah, 13 year olds are having sex down here true, but it wasnt but a couple of years ago that the couple I told you about took place (Read Fist Post)

Thta's a new frickin' law, or whoever the judge was in the case was frickin' wetodid

[lord_carbo]

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

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.

It wasn't the child's intent, but it happened. Explain that.

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.

Oh, so distributing child porn privately is okay, but distributing it "publically" (how public are cp groups, anyway?) isn't? If distributing it at all is bad, then, in your own words, aren't the kids breaking the law? This bringing me back to how if you own something illegal, nobody will know it you don't ****ing show anybody...

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

What? This is protecting children! It's protecting them from their own stupidity! It's like laws against attempting suicide or hard drugs... they're there to prevent stupid people from experimenting. This case is a perfect example... it was distributed "publically" because the kids were stupid. Had they known this was totally illegal or that there was a good chance they'd get busted, this possibly wouldn't have happened.

[MixMasterLar]

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

Lord Carbo:

taking us back to earth

[CypherToorima]

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

Except there was no distribution at all. Explain to me how one distributes something to his or her self.

[GuidoHunter]

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

One puts it on a computer that is not his or hers.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[CypherToorima]

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

And that happened when?

[GuidoHunter]

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

Since they're sixteen, I doubt that they own those computers that they used. As such, the computers belong to somebody else, so they distributed the pictures to the owner of the computer.

Excerpts from the article:

"Combine unsupervised teenagers, digital cameras and e-mail, and, given sufficient time, you'll end up with risque photographs on a computer somewhere."

"The two sent the photos from a computer at Amber's house to Jeremy's personal e-mail address.

"In addition, the two defendants placed the photos on a computer and then, using the Internet, transferred them to another computer. Not only can the two computers be hacked, but by transferring the photos using the Net, the photos may have been and perhaps still are accessible to the provider and/or other individuals. Computers also allow for long-term storage of information which may then be disseminated at some later date."

"The majority concludes that the child in this case did not have a reasonable expectation that the photographs would remain private. To support this conclusion, the majority speculates about the many ways in which the photographs might have been revealed to others. The e-mail transmission might have been intercepted. The relationship might have ended badly. The boyfriend might have wanted to show the photo to someone else to brag about his sexual conquest. With all due respect, I think these arguments are beside the point. Certainly there are circumstances in which the photos might have been revealed unintentionally to third parties, but that would always be the case."

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[lord_carbo]

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

Since they're sixteen, that also means they probably felt the need to brag about the video everywhere and every time they could. I mean, if you're willing to make an amateur porn video at such a young age where you're so hormone-driven and fueled by the faux sense that sexual endeavors make you awesome, chances are you're not going to keep it private.

[Afrobean]

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

@guido saying that the "CP" was "distributed" when it was emailed: Better put the owners of the server that the image was hosted on on trial for distributing CP. And while we're at it, let's put the owners of photobucket and imageshack in jail for distributing CP, because you just know it's used by others to distribute. Oh better try the owners of 4chan, etc. too, because I hear they get times where people post CP on there, so obviously 4chan "distributes" CP.

Really, I'd be all for punishing these "kids" if they had actually distributed it. Whatever happened to criminal intent being a part of trying someone for a crime? I suppose one could argue that they were reckless, but then by that very same definition, anyone who purchases things over the Internet is being "reckless" with their money (and actually their IDENTITY), because nothing is 100% secure when computers are involved.

ps since when was this a video and since when are we allowed to make assumptions such as "lol they braged so they shud be punised"?

[MixMasterLar]

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

@ Afrobean

First, fileshare websites state up front that the content is not theirs. You think they say that to warn you of CP? No. They say that to cover their cans in a legal problem.

And Carbo never said they "did" brag, he was just throwing out a thoery (A likely one).

Besides all this, the law has to draw the line somewere. I mean, if we let them get away with emailing it to a other computer then what's the next step? In the end you are helping kids stay out of CP.