?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Ramblings Journals I Read Calendar The Dirt MegaZone's Waste of Time Older Older Newer Newer
Down the rabbit hole we go... - MegaZone's Safety Valve
The Ramblings of a Damaged Mind
zonereyrie
zonereyrie
Down the rabbit hole we go...
Does this seem fucked up to anyone else?

Teen girl charged with posting nude photos on Internet
PITTSBURGH (AP) — A 15-year-old girl has been arrested for taking nude photographs of her self and posting them on the Internet, police said.

The girl, whose identity was withheld, was accused of sending out photographs of herself in various states of undress and performing a variety of sexual acts. She sent them to people she met in chat rooms on the Internet, police said.

Police seized her computer and found dozens of photographs stored on the hard drive. Authorities did not say how police learned about the girl.

She has been charged with sexual abuse of children, possession of child pornography and dissemination of child pornography.


She has been charged with sexual abuse of children, possession of child pornography and dissemination of child pornography. A 15-year old girl took sexual photos of herself and sent them to people online, so she's charged with these crimes? She abused... herself? (Yes, yes, 'self abuse' jokes aside.) She has pictures of herself on her own computer, performing (apparently solo?) sexual acts, so she possesses child porn. While *technically* correct, it is *her*. She can look in a fucking mirror! The only charge that seems at all legitimate is dissemination, but I hardly think trying this girl and convicting her as a sex offender is in anyone's best interest, least of all her's. It sounds more like she needs some counseling and therapy, and perhaps her parents need to pay a bit more attention, since she apparently thought sending out photos of herself to people she met online was a good idea. The people who solicited the photos, if they knew she was a minor, I could see being charged. But charging this girl with exploiting herself is just through-the-looking-glass bizarre.

We need to protect the children... from themselves... by charging them as sex offenders... WHAT?!

EDIT: syringavulgaris points out the article is from 2004, so this isn't a new event. I wonder how this case came out...

Tags: , ,
Current Location: 42.33821N 71.59212W
I am: shrill
Current Media: office buzz

7 STDOUT || STDIN
Comments
(Deleted comment)
mackys From: mackys Date: February 5th, 2007 07:50 pm (UTC) (Direct Link)
If it was free or if she charged people for them.

IMO, that's probably irrelevant. As you said, the "crime" is distribution. I can see no argument of any merit for prosecuting her for having nude photos of herself. The problem is when other people have them.

Legally speaking, I pretty much see this as a case of "no harm, no foul." Tell her not to give away nude pictures of herself until she's 18, and close the case.
syringavulgaris From: syringavulgaris Date: February 5th, 2007 02:57 pm (UTC) (Direct Link)
Definitely fucked up, but did you notice the article's almost three years old? One hopes it's been thrown out of court by now.
zonereyrie From: zonereyrie Date: February 5th, 2007 03:04 pm (UTC) (Direct Link)
Heh, nope, I didn't actually notice the date. I don't think I was awake yet. :-) I wonder if there is anyway to figure out the outcome...
From: zeeke42 Date: February 5th, 2007 03:27 pm (UTC) (Direct Link)
What brought up this nearly 3 year old article now? I agree that this is completely ridiculous. There's some legal commentary here.


The whole age of consent issue is complex, and simplistic laws lead to all sorts of silly situations. I'm particularly amused by states where the age of consent is lower if the elder partner is below a certain age. I understand what they're trying to accomplish, but it should be done with an age difference, not an arbitrary cutoff. It's silly when a couple can legally have sex until the older one passes the cutoff, then is supposed to stop and wait until the younger one reaches the new consent age.


I really think the criteria should be whether or not there was an abuse of power issue, but I understand that's a lot harder to enforce than a simple set of numbers. I do think the countries that set a different (higher) age of consent for commercial sex have a good idea.

zonereyrie From: zonereyrie Date: February 5th, 2007 03:30 pm (UTC) (Direct Link)
I stumbled on a link to it this morning, I think in someone else's LJ. And I didn't notice the date when I read it.
cdaae From: cdaae Date: February 5th, 2007 05:14 pm (UTC) (Direct Link)
I really think the criteria should be whether or not there was an abuse of power issue, but I understand that's a lot harder to enforce than a simple set of numbers.

Agreed. I know so many people whose early sexual experiences would be considered terrible by today's standards, yet really weren't, and who would find the suggestion that they were abused in any way absurd.

I think I'd feel better about laws being overly puritanical if it actually meant that real cases of abuse got dealt with more often... and perhaps it does. I hope it does. It's rather hard to be sure.
buran From: buran Date: February 5th, 2007 04:46 pm (UTC) (Direct Link)
I don't know why you're getting flak for the date. It's not any less ridiculous now as it was then.
7 STDOUT || STDIN