Could Maroney Be Prosecuted For Her Own Hacked Pictures? 274
Online warnings about the dangers of teen sexting, from sources ranging from the FBI to MTV, frequently warn that even a minor who takes a sexually explicit picture of themselves can be prosecuted for violating child pornography laws.
And these prosecutions really do happen. One Pennsylvania district attorney threatened child pornography charges against two teen girls who posed for a photo in their bras making peace signs, and tried to force them to write a report on why their actions were wrong and "what it means to be a girl in today's society." (With the ACLU's help, the girls' parents sued to stop the D.A. from following through.) A study from the American Academy of Pediatrics found that in teen "sexting" incidents reported to the police, even in cases where the sexting was between two minors and there were no "aggravating" circumstances (abuse or lack of clear consent), police made arrests in 18% of those cases. (The arrest rate was higher in cases involving "aggravating" circumstances or where an adult was involved in the sexting.)
Meanwhile, hundreds of articles have been written about Porn.com being forced to take down the nude pictures of McKayla Maroney, after receiving word from her lawyers that she was underage when the pictures were taken. As far as I can tell, none of the articles about the incident mentioned that, if her lawyers are correct, then Maroney could be theoretically prosecuted for creating, possessing, and distributing child pornography. Of course nobody wants to see that happen, but the elephant in the living room is that before Maroney's photo leak scandal, many teens were arrested for doing essentially the same thing, and more of them will continue to be arrested after the celebrity nude hacking scandal is old news.
That's not to say that Maroney's photos necessarily did constitute child pornography. Nude or topless photos of minors are not necessarily illegal, if they're not sexually explicit; Thora Birch was under 18 for her topless scene in American Beauty. I haven't seen the Maroney photos (honest -- although I'd like to think that whatever she was doing, she was making her not impressed face). Maybe they really were explicit enough to qualify as child pornography. Maybe they weren't, and Maroney's lawyers misunderstood the law and thought that any of her underage nude or topless selfies were automatically child porn. Or maybe her lawyers knew the pictures were not really child porn, but they were bluffing when they demanded that Porn.com take the pictures down. Whatever the case, Maroney's lawyers claimed the pictures were child pornography, and if they're right, the lawyers just criminally implicated their client as well.
If the pictures really were explicit and she sent them to any of her same-age friends, she could also be charged with disseminating obscene material to a minor. Iowa teenager Jorge Canal was convicted on this charge, and his conviction upheld by the Iowa Supreme Court, after his 14-year-old female friend asked him to send him a picture of his erect penis, and he obliged. (Although since he was 18 at the time of sending the picture, there was no child porn charge.) If his defense attorneys tried a defense along the lines of, "My clients actions harmed absolutely no one, and it's the prosecutors who have ruined the lives of not only my client but also his supposed 'victim', by putting them both through a trauma that will hang over them for the rest of their lives," it didn't work.
Many states have attempted to pass laws specifically addressing sexting by and/or to teenagers by reducing the penalty from a felony child pornography charge to something less severe. What all of these laws still have in common, though, is that they retain the option to impose some criminal penalties on teens for sexting even among themselves. The ACLU has opposed such a bill in Pennsylvania on the grounds that even a misdemeanor charge for teen sexting would be too draconian of a punishment.
"The Need for Sexting Law Reform: Appropriate Punishments for Teenage Behaviors", written by Alexandra Kushner, a legal associate at Winston & Strawn LLP, and published in the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Law and Social Change, argues for de-criminalizing consensual sexting among teens. (The paper argues for retaining the option to prosecute cases involving abuse or malicious forwarding of a sexted picture.) Much of the paper is refreshing for the plain language not often found in legal argumentation; discussing the case of a 16-year-old and 17-year-old who faced child pornography charges for taking sexy pictures of each other, Kushner writes, "They should not have been charged at all because they were not harming each other or anyone else by taking and keeping these pictures." This is exactly the right way to frame the issue, but to most legal scholars, sentences like these are considered simply adorable.
For the other side, you can read "A Legal Response Is Necessary for Self-Produced Child Pornography", by law professor Susan Hanley Duncan. I found it less than convincing because much of the paper stresses that sexting can have serious unforeseen consequences for teens, including public humiliation if the pictures are forwarded to their friends. Well, we know that. But that just raises the obvious question: Isn't that punishment enough, and why do we need criminal charges on top of that? Even buying into the stereotype that teens are focused only on the present -- if a teen is not deterred by the humiliating prospect of having her photo forwarded around the entire school, then why would they be deterred by the threat of prosecution, which is less likely, further out in the future, and a potential risk that they might not even be aware of?
(Note that this logic does not apply to students who forwarded sexted images to harass the person appearing in them -- the person forwarding the image usually does not face the short-term threat of public humiliation, which means a legal penalty might be the only deterrent they would care about. That's one argument for retaining the option to prosecute people who forward sexted pictures maliciously.)
Even the FBI, in their "Advice for Young People" regarding sexting, betrays a certain embarrassment over the hypocritical nature of the laws. To a person forwarding an image of someone else, they warn: "You could face child pornography charges, go to jail, and have to register as a sex offender;" but to the person taking the original picture, they say only vaguely that you could "even get in trouble with the law" -- while leaving out the fact that all of the draconian penalties in their list, also apply to the person who takes the picture, under the laws that the FBI enforces.
But unless or until sexting laws are changed, Maroney probably did violate them according to the statements from her own lawyers, which might lead cynics to think that she escaped being charged because of her celebrity status. I think that's unlikely. Recall that "only" 18% of teens who sexted each other were arrested in cases where the incidents were reported to police, so if she had been a non-celebrity, she probably would have gotten off scot-free as well. Whether a teen gets arrested or charged for "sexting," probably depends less on what they actually did, than the luck of the draw as far as which police officer hears the report of the incident, and which prosecutor ultimately has the discretion to decide whether to file charges. (Of course that makes me a cynic too, but I'm the kind who thinks that people see patterns and non-existent reasons for outcomes that are far more random than we'd like to believe.)
Public reaction is another matter. When District Attorney George Skumanick prosecuted those two girls for posing in their bras making peace signs, he may not have had all of the public on his side, but there would have been an absolute tsunami of outrage if he had tried the same thing against a celebrity like Maroney, trying to get her to write an essay about "what it means to be a girl in today's society." I'm sure she would have been not impressed.
"Read on for the rest." (Score:5, Funny)
Re:"Read on for the rest." (Score:4, Funny)
Why?
Why?
Doctoral thesis on nudie pics.
LOCK HER UP! (Score:5, Interesting)
She needs to go to jail. Seriously. She's no better than all the poor slobs before her that were convicted of the same thing. Fame should be an aggravating factor. She should have to register as a sex offender when she gets out. Then maybe... Hopefully... This issue will get the attention it deserves and these draconian laws will change. But please, for the sake of all the other victims of this law, don't treat her special because she's female, pretty, rich, and famous.
Re: (Score:3)
But please, for the sake of all the other victims of this law, don't treat her special because she's female, pretty, rich, and famous.
THAT part I agree with, but "she needs to go to jail", I do not. Necessarily. OP was vague on the details.
But I think a lot of what was exposed in OP's article is that these are teenagers being prosecuted for doing your average dumb teenage things. Hell... in a lot of states it is legal to actually have sex for 2 or more years before you're even legally allowed to give someone a nude picture of yourself. And I think that says there's something seriously wrong with the "sexting" laws.
Re: (Score:3)
It's actually pretty consistent how it's been applied with underage kids sexting each other. In the cases I'm aware of when someone has been prosecuted over this stuff, all the girls have been given a pass for the creation of said material. Instead it's the boys they sent them to who were prosecuted for possessing "child porn".
It's a complete double standard and needs to stop, but because it exists Maroney is in no threat of being arrested. If she were a he, then maybe.
Story title needs a warning! (Score:3, Informative)
I didn't realize she was under-age when I saw the headline. A few quick Google searches later, and I'd unwittingly accessed what counts as child porn.
Serious, Slashdot editors, this title needs a fix to include a warning, like instantly.
Re:Story title needs a warning! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Correct... and
, Maroney could in theory be prosecuted for taking the original pictures.
Implies that the pictures are pornography.
They might become porn when distributed as such. The purpose and manner in which they are distributed and used affects what they are.
Michelangelo made some famous sculptures. They are considered art, not porn. On the other hand, if someone buys replica of one of Michelangelo's works for the purpose of personal sexual excitation/entertainment, then it is porn.
But that doe
Re: (Score:2)
As pointed out, her lawyer used the argument that they were porn to get them taken down. If it's now argued that they are not porn so she escapes the law, then the lawyer filed a false take down notice. If it's determined they're not porn, the site can legally repost them. Either way she cannot win.
Re:Story title needs a warning! (Score:4, Insightful)
Sadly, I'd have to say it's probably up to the prosecutor to determine whether or not to file charges and then up to a judge to determine whether or not to allow a case to proceed. The legal definition is pretty vague and subjective.
I believe it was Ed Meese during the Reagan administration who, when asked how he would define port, answered to the effect of "I can't give you a definition, but I know it when I see it."
I'm sure /. will correct me if I'm attributing the quote incorrectly.
Re: (Score:3)
I believe it was Ed Meese during the Reagan administration who, when asked how he would define port, answered to the effect of "I can't give you a definition, but I know it when I see it."
I'm sure /. will correct me if I'm attributing the quote incorrectly.
Yes, you are incorrect. He was talking about a fine chardonnay, not port.
Justice Stewart harcore porn re obsecenity, 1964 (Score:5, Informative)
> I believe it was Ed Meese during the Reagan administration who, when asked how he would define port, answered to the effect of "I can't give you a definition, but I know it when I see it."
That would be Justice Potter Stewart, in 1964:
"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced
within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so.
But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that."
In an obscenity case, his opinion was that the first amendment disallowed the state from regulating anything but "hard-core pornography". He said that the movie in question was not hardcore porn, so he did not NEED to define exactly what would be "hard-core pornography". Later cases dd need to try to narrow down the definition, so they did a little bit. The main case, Miller, included an element of "contemporary community standards" in the definition. The government can only ban/restrict stuff that violates community standards at the time, which means Salt Lake can ban stuff that Los Angeles can't - because of the different communities.
Re: (Score:3)
Utah tried that. It opened the door for the defense to collect statistics from dish/directTV on regional porn viewing habits.
Utah rents more and more perverted porn from the networks then LA. It was a 'Great Moment in Lawyering'!
It's porn.com. Obscenity vs state child porn (Score:3)
Mysidia seems to be thinking along the lines of supreme court decisions regarding obscenity. Obscenity is difficult to define and the definition depends on intent - naked pics intended to get the viewer horny vs naked pics in a medical textbook intended to educate. Maroney's lawyers had them removed from a site called porn.com. Porn.com is aptly named - it's a porn site. Naked pictures of an attractive young woman on porn.com are probably there to be used as porn. It's porn.com, after all.
When children
Re:Story title needs a warning! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This falls into the regular double standard, police selective enforcement, and such.
IMO, the naked human form by itself shouldn't be pornography. If we made nothing of it then it would stop being so sensational, but that's not likely to happen. Because we treat a naked picture as so sexual it then becomes sexual.
Re:Story title needs a warning! (Score:5, Informative)
ah yes... but Child Pornography is a special kind of pornography. the definition is so broad its scary.
Section 2256 of Title 18, United States Code, defines child pornography as any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor (someone under 18 years of age). Visual depictions include photographs, videos, digital or computer generated images indistinguishable from an actual minor, and images created, adapted, or modified, but appear to depict an identifiable, actual minor. Undeveloped film, undeveloped videotape, and electronically stored data that can be converted into a visual image of child pornography are also deemed illegal visual depictions under federal law...
Specifically, Section 2251 makes it illegal to persuade, induce, entice, or coerce a minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct for purposes of producing visual depictions of that conduct. Any individual who attempts or conspires to commit a child pornography offense is also subject to prosecution under federal law.
Re:Story title needs a warning! (Score:5, Interesting)
Any electronically stored data can be converted to any image you want if you process the data correclty/incorrectly. I mean, it's a little bit easier if the data is an actual jpeg that would be displayed as such when passed through a standard jpeg rendering function, but you could construct an algorithm such that any data file ends up producing an image of child pornography.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
ah yes... but Child Pornography is a special kind of pornography. the definition is so broad its scary.
Section 2256 of Title 18, United States Code, defines child pornography as any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor (someone under 18 years of age). Visual depictions include photographs, videos, digital or computer generated images indistinguishable from an actual minor, and images created, adapted, or modified, but appear to depict an identifiable, actual minor. Undeveloped film, undeveloped videotape, and electronically stored data that can be converted into a visual image of child pornography are also deemed illegal visual depictions under federal law...
well with a single XOR instruction and the right arrangement of bytes in a mask you can turn any arbitrary file into any other arbitrary file child porn or otherwise. Thats it lets ban the use of the XOR operator, or any other arrangement of instructions logical/arithmetic operators that could be used to to emulate it...
Re:Story title needs a warning! (Score:5, Interesting)
The way I understand the rules in the US, the definition of child pornography is actually highly expansive and can include photos of lascivious intent in spite of the presence or absence of clothing. The iconic Coppertone Girl ad of the dog pulling at the little girl's bikini might be enough to cause a problem in some jurisdictions, and every once in a while we'll get stories about parents getting legal fallout for having pictures of their infants being bathed or something.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, they started charging the boys first. And then the boys with good lawyers started making noise about the fact that the girls were producing the porn that put the boys in jail in the first place. So it's either charge the girls, or throw out convictions and get sued.
Re: (Score:2)
These laws are totally fucked up. They are torturing people's lives and huge tax payer expense for no reason.
Re:Story title needs a warning! (Score:5, Funny)
I didn't realize she was under-age when I saw the headline. A few tissues later, and I'd unwittingly accessed what counts as child porn.
Serious, Slashdot editors, this title needs a fix to include a warning, like instantly.
Fixed that for you.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd unwittingly accessed what counts as child porn.
well, you do your name justice thats for sure
Re:Story title needs a warning! (Score:5, Insightful)
I didn't realize she was under-age when I saw the headline. A few quick Google searches later, and I'd unwittingly accessed what counts as child porn.
Serious, Slashdot editors, this title needs a fix to include a warning, like instantly.
The title does not need fixing.
Your idiotic laws do. Like instantly.
Re: (Score:3)
No, you did not.
That photo is not child porn. Why?
Because she isn't a child.
We need to establish in the US that a Child is a boy or girl who is prepubescent. That a Teen isn't a child but an girl or guy who hasn't reached the age of majority. (legal age to vote, get a job, support
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
So, basically, what the law is saying, is that there's a bunch of 40+ males that own all the teenagers' body images, by decree. Because, lest one noticed that, the vast majority of U.S. lawmakers, at state and federal levels, are 40+ males. So our "child porn" laws are really no different Sharia, as far as I'm concerned. But all those minors are expected to do well in school and pass their SATs.
Re: (Score:2)
Given how common affairs with young women are in congress, looks like they utilize the ownership too.
Re: (Score:3)
Prosecution in the U.S. jumped the shark some time ago. It is entirely possible for a minor to be charged as an adult for manufacturing child pornography for taking a picture of him/herself.
losing your rights (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess under these standards the papua new guinea indigenous dress [google.com] would be considered pornography and 'child pornography'.
Real pornography happens within people's heads and minds, not on film or pictures. Government is not authorised to destroy individual freedoms this way, however once you allow the government to take some freedoms away, allow it to take away most of your private property ownership and operation rights, you lose your bodies to the government as well, which is why in many respects, the government sees itself as your owner, where your income belongs to it, your property belongs to it unless it allows you to keep some and where your bodies and your lives belong to it as well.
The TSA agents feeling up your private parts or taking your naked pictures, the prison sentences for narcotics possession or sale, the capital punishment for anything at all really, the wars, the murder of civilians in cases of so called 'collateral damage', the 'civil forfeiture', etc.etc. all of these are indicators of the unauthorised usurped powers that government enjoys and that the individuals lost.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If teenagers voluntarily send each other nude or erotic pictures of each other, who is the victim? How much physical and psychical damage has (s)he suffered?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not really (Score:2)
Someone below links to an interesting blog that had quite a bit of exposure a while back, discussing this topic and boldly claiming within the next 10 years possessing child porn needs to be legalized. Find the link, and give it a read. It's honestly much more detailed than my summary below.
Two 14 year old teenagers experimenting with sex is not a surprise, is not a shock, and is more often than not completely voluntary and consensual. I won't take the position of cheering them on, or even encouraging th
Re:losing your rights (Score:5, Insightful)
You're looking at this the wrong way. It's all the married, conservative 40+ year old "dads" that suck up public outrage and write those laws. The well-being of the kids never enters the picture. They know better. For the children, you know. It's repugnant :(
Re: (Score:2)
Hard to say. It's clear that their mind reading capabilities are non-existent afterward, but that's only a decrease if they had any psychic abilities before taking naked pictures, which hasn't yet been persuasively argued, let alone conclusively demonstrated, in my opinion. I mean, certainly the fact that they became famous means they made decisions compatible with that outcome, but to accept that fame and/or success was the result of paranormal or supernatural phenomena rather than either rational decisi
Rick Falkvinge on the subject... (Score:4, Insightful)
ABSTRACT
This article argues that our current laws on the topic are counterproductive, because they protect child molesters instead of bringing them to justice, they criminalize a generation of normally-behaving teenagers which diverts valuable police resources from the criminals we should be going after, and they lead to censorship and electronic book burning as well as unacceptable collateral damage to innocent families. Child abuse as such is not condoned by anybody, and this article argues that current laws are counterproductive in preventing and prosecuting it.
In http://falkvinge.net/2012/09/0... [falkvinge.net] The abstract is there because the title of the article will enrage the folks doing the prosecution...
Re:Rick Falkvinge on the subject... (Score:5, Insightful)
I would go so far as to say that the law and the prosecutions are in themselves child abuse. Consider, a teen girl is being told that an image of her body is so toxic to society that she is guilty of a felony just for taking a picture of it.
Re:Rick Falkvinge on the subject... (Score:4, Interesting)
But today the laws are really just crafted to advance careers. They are very poorly constructed for actually addressing problems, but are well crafted for scoring political points with both voters and party members. They are written in such a way that they can be easily selectively applied to cases most likely to result in career advancement and ignore cases that do not benefit the prosecutor or police. Thus it is really easy to connect the prosecutions to the narrative, ensuring it matches up in a way that pleases voters since everyone loves data that confirms what they already know from TV.
We no longer have Justice (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree with what you say, and was going to write a similar comment. What I'd add to your points is that Justice no longer exists in the US. We have a bunch of rules which have been written to exclude some, and include others and those selective rules are are being selectively enforced.
I can't say that is a new phenomenon, but it is at least more obvious today (perhaps more openly done as well). How many times this year have cops been cleared of all wrong doing after brutally beating and murdering unarmed suspects? How many bank executives have gone to jail for fraud that cause millions of families everything? How many Government officials have been brought up on perjury charges?
Re: (Score:2)
See Socratese's Definition (Score:4, Interesting)
You can certainly attempt to disagree, but Socrates makes a point when defining "Justice" which is that "Justice" must be consistent. If a law allows one person to do something that another person gets punished for, then the law is unjust. Justice is the ideal that Laws are supposed to maintain, therefor justice does not change.
People have ignored or remained ignorant to Socrates's definition, but nobody has proven him wrong or provided a more accurate definition.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
For justice, you must go to Don Corleone...
In this life there is no justice. There is only law.
This law does not apply to famous people. (Score:2, Insightful)
Just ask Vanessa Hudgens.
Hell, even Perez Hilton posted an alleged picture of Miley's underage crotch. Despite the fact it was fake, it was still technically classified as child porn. The 30-something male who makes a living obsessing over teenage celebrities received no punishment.
Re: (Score:2)
Perez Hilton: born Mario Armando Lavandeira, Jr., March 23, 1978 (age 36) [wikipedia.org]
Happy now?
Re: (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P... [wikipedia.org]
Mario Armando Lavandeira, Jr. (born March 23, 1978), known professionally as Perez Hilton
2014 - 1978 = 36
Anything else I can do for you today?
Re: (Score:2)
The *only* U.S. laws that I know of that protect data itself are those that cover espionage, legally protected information (HIPAA, FERPA, etc.), access to computers and computer networks, trade secrets and copyright. Outside of those laws the concept of "stolen information" exists only in your own mind, but not in the legal vocabulary. So, in this case, the only law that applies without a doubt is copyright, and perhaps also the laws against unauthorized access to computers. As you can see, the second law i
ugh (Score:5, Insightful)
Contributor Bennett Haselton
*skip*
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
It's really weird how criticizing ol' Benny instantly gets you downmodded. Does anybody actually like his content?
She was a minor (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is what happens.... (Score:4, Insightful)
...when you codify morality.
All of our criminal code in the US with regards to sex crimes needs to be scrapped and rewritten by people from another planet who haven't been influenced by religion and/or tradition.
Re: (Score:2)
All of our criminal code in the US with regards to sex crimes needs to be scrapped and rewritten by people from another planet who haven't been influenced by religion and/or tradition.
You should think that through a little more. Extraterrestrials might breed like spiders where the males get cannibalized after mating. Can you imagine "To Catch a Predator" on another planet?
CHRIS HANSEN: Tonight, we're waiting for NudeSpiderMan as he crawls up... he thinks he's just here for sex. Little does he know that he's about to get trapped in our web.
NudeSpiderMan: Hi, are you "Charolette"?
DECOY: Wow, you look cute! Hold on while I finish spinning this orb around the lunch I just caught for us!
Nu
You are DAMN RIGHT she should be charged (Score:5, Interesting)
This is something that has always bothered me. If a teenager is sexting her boyfriend or girlfriend and they happen to get the number number and send a pic to me, I have child porn on my phone. It doesn't matter how it got there. It doesn't matter how fast I delete it. If there ever happens to be any investigation of me for any reason and they check my SMS messages at the phone company, the cops will see it and now they have a reason to investigate every aspect of my life, confiscate every computer I have, and generally fuck me over.
Teenagers sexting is paying with fire and can destroy completely innocent lives.
Yes, I get the inevitable joke "So that's how you're saying that picture got there."
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
This is something that has always bothered me. If a teenager is sexting her boyfriend or girlfriend and they happen to get the number number and send a pic to me, I have child porn on my phone. It doesn't matter how it got there. It doesn't matter how fast I delete it. If there ever happens to be any investigation of me for any reason and they check my SMS messages at the phone company,
Pictures are not transmitted via SMS rather SMS is used to communicate an Internet URL your phone must follow to download multimedia content. You can turn off the automatic downloading part and still receive normal text messages.
Be warned LEA's ability to generate pretext is BOUNDLESS... aggregation of illogical laws and otherwise voting for dimwits spewing "zero tolerance" just makes it easier for our kings to throw whomever they dislike into their dungeons.
It is hard to believe with 25% of the worlds pri
Re: (Score:3)
Teenagers sexting is playing with fire and can destroy completely innocent lives.
Holly fuck, how did the government got to a situation where people consider it something as a force of nature of a naturally occurring phenomenon that cannot be changed and so the cause for your life fucked up must be the teenager sending the picture.
It is the government that destroys completely innocent lives. The government and nobody else!
If they make a law that everyone eating ice cream will be thrown in prison and ass fucked, it really does not mean that the ice cream truck is raping people. :)
Re: (Score:2)
isn't the cloud service provider for these phones technically in possession of all the kiddie porn anyway?
has this issue been resolved yet?
Re: (Score:2)
isn't the cloud service provider for these phones technically in possession of all the kiddie porn anyway?
has this issue been resolved yet?
No they are protected by safe harbor laws one of the few good things to come out of the dmca
Re: (Score:3)
Nope, my argument is "creating child pornography is a crime." It should be prosecuted whether a 40 year old creates child porn or a 14 year old creates child porn.
I understand that if the police are investigating me for whatever reason and they happen to see that a phone number that has never called me and I have never called sent me a 14 year sexting pic, eventually they'll come to the conclusion that it was sent by accident. HOWEVER, until they reach that conclusion, they'll investigate every aspect of
Re: (Score:2)
Also, you absolutely CANNOT put in any sort of age-based exemption.
"Ok, 14 year old Kimmy, you come operate the camera, while 14 year old Johnny and 14 year old Tammy fool around."
I don't know what a good answer would be.
Re: (Score:2)
It not only "should" be prosecuted that way, it most certainly is prosecuted that way, and it should remain so until it finally gets through the thick skulls of the voters and their elected lawmakers that those laws actually hurt their kids - and hurt them badly, ruining their kids' futures. Only when a sufficient number of teenagers go to prison and have their futures ruined by such indiscriminate "but think of the children" laws, will there be sufficient outrage to wipe such laws for ever after.
Re: (Score:2)
It not only "should" be prosecuted that way, it most certainly is prosecuted that way, and it should remain so until the end of time.
There, simplified it for you. Even quantum tunneling can't penetrate the barrier of a thick skull.
Re: (Score:2)
If you think that a teenager taking a photo of themselves is "toxic"....
Legally toxic idiot. You knew that.
it could (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
atleast here the the law is that if you take pictures of yourself when you are under 18 and have them there is no problem, the instant you turn 18 and you have kept pictures those pictures they can land you in jail for possession of child porn
Then we'd have to get into plants and animals - they're all nude. Basically this is all God's fault.
It's not that simple (Score:4, Insightful)
If kids could not be prosecuted, some poor, down on the luck, homeless kid will end up taking their own photograph and selling it. Kids commit crimes all the time - sometimes really stupid crimes.
Not saying the laws should not be updated - they should. But it's a lot more complicated than some people think.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
And that would be horrible. Far better that said hypothetical kid remain impoverished and homeless, right? It's not as if anti-porn concern trolls are going to want to pass laws to make sure kids aren't impoverished and homeless. And it's not as if we could have kids under adult supervision by any means other than criminal prosecution, right?
Re: (Score:3)
Kids routinely willing do questionable acts for cash. If kids could not be prosecuted, some poor, down on the luck, homeless kid will end up taking their own photograph and selling it. Kids commit crimes all the time - sometimes really stupid crimes.
You mean like how they turn drug users into drug criminals so people won't become drug users? Yeah, that'll work... not. And it totally makes life so much better for the "victims" to get a criminal record on top, particularly one with so little stigma attached to it. They recently did a survey here in Norway and 7% of teens 13-16 were "sexting", pretty much all of it between themselves. If they'd included 16-18 in the survey, the number would probably be a lot higher. The same survey showed 60% of 13-16 yea
In Theory? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
"paedophile"
Oh look. Another numbskull with no clue what the word means, but spells it with the extra a because they think it makes them look/sound smart.
Get lost.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh look. Another numbskull with no clue what the word means, but spells it with the extra a because they think it makes them look/sound smart.
Most people don't know that ephebophile is a word. Including the Firefox spellchecker, I might add.
Re: (Score:2)
Why should she not be simply because she is friends with the President? We see again that our Republican rulers do not treat us fairly.
Republican rulers?
Why should she not be simply because she is friends with the President?
Republican - I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Re: (Score:3)
Why should she not be simply because she is friends with the President? We see again that our Republican rulers do not treat us fairly.
Republican rulers?
Why should she not be simply because she is friends with the President?
Republican - I don't think that word means what you think it means.
I don't know, I've often joked that Obama is one of the better Republican presidents we've had in recent memory. And not to disparage Republicans or even Obama. [1] If he had any actual socialist tendencies he would have pushed for a single payer option instead of the insurance company windfall that was passed. You know the political system is screwed up when you miss Richard Nixon.
The political compass summarizes the absurdity of the left-right divide in US politics: http://www.politicalcompass.or... [politicalcompass.org]
[
The problem with legalize... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
...is that you force everyone to follow the letter of the law instead of the intent of the law. One reason why "plain English" laws are better for the populous even though they may be harder for the lawyers and the courts.
They way the current system is supposed to work is someone fights one of these prosecutions and a precedent is set, and the higher the court involved in the fight the more widely applicable the precedent. It seems like this is one area where, even under child porn laws, the first ammendment should protect her from prosecution.
Of course nobody wants to see that happen? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because it seems to me that if I can be put on a sex offender registry and/or jailed for up to the rest of my life (possibly really short and painful life) simply for owning a phone or email address to which a picture was sent, or god forbid browsing a porn site and they happen to be in the gallery, then the creation and distribution of said photo better be illegal. It better be very very illegal.
Yes (Score:2, Interesting)
Just like the male underage teenagers who have already been prosecuted and received sentences and had to register as sexual offenders.
Legal to see and do but not film (Score:5, Interesting)
This is my big problem with these types of charges. It is legal for a minor to be naked and have another minor see them (or see themselves). It is legal for a minor to have sex with another minor (assuming consent, etc.). Why then should it be illegal for them to take a picture during this entirely legal act? If it is legal for the person taking the picture to see the act itself and legal for the person viewing the picture to see the actual act (and/or participate in the actual act) why would it be illegal to view a picture of something you can otherwise legally view?
Unfortunately, America is all about making anything it can illegal. If something is a bad idea (which a lot of times this stuff is) that isn't a reason to make it illegal and further punish the people who are already dealing with the consequences of their bad idea.
Re: (Score:2)
It is legal for a minor to be naked and have another minor see them (or see themselves)
Don't give the lawmakers any ideas, now. There's plenty of conservative middle-aged daddies out there who'd love to write such laws and loudly proclaim their goodness "for the children".
It is legal for a minor to have sex with another minor (assuming consent, etc.)
It's not. The concept of consent doesn't apply to minors. But of course they get into trouble at school if they don't behave properly. And they are forced to "sign" various school codes of conduct etc. It's basically a mess created by people who have no knowledge of law, and whose "morality" is derived from wishing really,
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't the proper solution to then criminalize the 'acting' and violence? This way there would be no risk of Ms. Maroney being prosecuted here.
Re: (Score:2)
And putting young people in prison and making them register as sex offenders for the rest of their lives does not?
Re: (Score:2)
Check out the actual laws - http://www.cga.ct.gov/2003/olr... [ct.gov]
Almost every laws specifies that one person must be over a certain age for the law to apply. There are some exceptions, but in general the laws are written that statutory rape is having sex with someone under X age when the perpetrator is either over X age or X years older.
So yes, it would be legal for 2 minors to have sex in most cases.
Re: (Score:2)
They can not give consent, but most laws are written to where one person has to be either over a certain age or X years older. Check out the actual laws - http://www.cga.ct.gov/2003/olr... [ct.gov].
I am not defending child porn at all. I am saying that prosecuting someone for taking pictures of themselves nude is not helpful to anyone. If it is legal to see, it should be legal to photograph. If I take a picture of my own penis, why would I be charged with creating pornography? It's mine, I can see it, why can't I t
FUCK! (Score:4, Insightful)
I clicked on a Bennet hassington article. FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK.
Don't want to be hasty (Score:2)
I want to give this question careful consideration, so I'll get back to you after a more extensive examination of the photographs in question.
Pics (Score:2)
I've said it before and I'll say it again....Pics or it didn't happen.
Seriously.
Free speech? Right to record own life? (Score:3, Interesting)
People should have the right to record their own lives, subject to not infringing on the privacy and other rights of other people.
The right of adults to share the recordings of their lives even if those recordings were made when they were minors and even if they were made by others without the legal consent of the now-adult participant with other adults who wish to view such recordings should generally fall under free speech protection.
That said, there is an argument to be made that under certain circumstances such as a staged rape scene or a scene that involved animals, if the subject of a pornographic photo appears to be a pre-teen or younger minor, regardless of the actual age of the participant, it might be considered legally obscene even if the same photo would not be considered obscene if the participant appeared to be an adult, even if the participant was in fact a minor.
There is also a strong argument that the wide dissemination of such material is bad for society, and as such it may be in the state's interest to prohibit anyone other than the person depicted in the image from making any money off of it and to prohibit the dissemination of such images to minors.
totalitarian prudery (Score:2)
Ohh noez - kiddie pr0n!!!1!!1! Burn the witch, burn the witch, BURN THE WITCH!
"child" vs "young adult" (Score:2)
Let's distinguish between "paedophile" and "hebephile" in our laws, please?
"child" vs "young adult"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H... [wikipedia.org]
Seriously... a 17yo is distinctly NOT a child. 16yolds in other nations can vote on important matters, and until relatively recently, 16yolds could vote, own property, run a business and were in every way considered an adult in the USA.
is it art or porn? (Score:3)
i'm no advocate for child porn, but many famous photographers have taken naked pictures of their kids. hell, my mom probably has a couple of adorable photos of me or my brother taking a bath as a baby -- but that's not PORN. americans are stupid about the naked body, and need to stop twisting everything into some kind of perversion. there's muppet "porn", for chrissakes, and that only hurts what, a bunch of felt and glue? a muppeteer's feelings?
Re: (Score:2)
You can be convicted for just looking at pictures.
Re: (Score:2)
You can be convicted for just looking at pictures.
I'm assuming you're talking about someone else (e.g.: an adult) looking at the picture a child took of herself. Which would show that person's intent to use as child porn, right? But it wouldn't by itself show the child's intent to create or distribute the image as child port. The OP's point was about "[t]aking pictures of yourself", not looking at pictures. I think the OP was saying that if the person taking the selfie didn't intend for it to be shared, then the act of taking that pic wouldn't be consid
Re: (Score:2)
The worst laws out there specifically disclaim the necessity of an intent. U.S. child pornography and drug laws are such laws. Possession is sufficient, you don't need any intent, heck, you could be braindead for all the law cares about you.
Re: (Score:2)
As I understand it (and IANAL), child pornography is one area in which mens rea does not apply - the creation, possession, or distribution of images determined to be CP is grounds for conviction, regardless of intent. It's fucked up, but there you go...