April 5th, 2004


userinfo senji
2004/04/05 14:42:00 - This is just extracting the urine...
Girl, 15, charged with child porn after posting her sex pics online
Current Mood: [mood icon] boggled

< | 15 glosses | comment | > )

userinfo enismirdal
[userpic]
2004/04/05 07:23:59
That is...disturbing. Surely just explaining to her that posting that sort of stuff is likely to result in her winding up in a binbag next to the M6 would be enough to deter her from doing so in future?
reply | thread )
userinfo megamole
[userpic]
2004/04/05 07:44:02
The RIAA will get her, too... I'm sure that photo format is proprietary...
reply | parent | thread )
userinfo emperor
[userpic]
2004/04/05 07:47:37
The devils advocate might say that since the problem with under-age pr0n is that the generation thereof involves abuse, why should anyone mind if she wants to run her own porn site? (20 marks)
reply | parent | thread )
userinfo senji
[userpic]
2004/04/05 07:50:08
A possible counter argument might be that the same level of damage to the child occurs in this case.
reply | parent | thread )
userinfo emperor
[userpic]
2004/04/05 08:27:25
Is a person not allowed (in law at least) to take reasonable risks?
reply | parent | thread )
userinfo senji
[userpic]
2004/04/05 08:28:22
It's possible that the level of risk that a minor is permitted to take is less.
reply | parent | thread )
userinfo emperor
[userpic]
2004/04/05 08:32:24
...but in that case would you not expect a parent or person in loco parentis (eg organiser of a school trip) to be found criminally or civilly liable, rather than the minor themselves?
reply | parent | thread )
userinfo senji
[userpic]
2004/04/05 08:33:37
That's a good point...
reply | parent | thread )
userinfo enismirdal
[userpic]
2004/04/05 07:52:25
True, and good point.

Although it'd still fall under some child protection law thing, wouldn't it? On the principle that dirty old men could track her down and do Wicked Things to her after getting kicks from the pics?

Or am I getting the wrong end of the stick here?
reply | parent | thread )
userinfo senji
[userpic]
2004/04/05 07:54:18
Tracking people with sensible online foo down is often difficult, particularly if you aren't the Police...
reply | parent | thread )
userinfo cjwatson
[userpic]
2004/04/05 07:54:22
It seems clear that she should be protected, certainly. But she shouldn't herself be charged with child abuse when she is the child in question!

reply | parent | thread )
userinfo enismirdal
[userpic]
2004/04/05 08:01:53
It certainly seems rather self-defeating.

Could be interesting to see whether it reaches the courts, and if so, what happens there.
reply | parent | thread )
userinfo paleshadow
[userpic]
2004/04/05 10:19:26 - Bleh.
American decency laws unreasonable, film at 11.

Seriously, I'd see this more an issue for her parents than for the courts: either she took them herself, or she was coerced to by whoever she was planning to send them to, but either way, it seems voluntary.

I will not judge its morality, as my personal opinion is a moot point from the law's PoV.

-D.
reply | thread )
userinfo skloak
[userpic]
2004/04/05 12:09:46
That sounds similar to the time the mother took pictures of nursing her son (who was about 2 years old, normal for her [south american] culture), and was arrested and charged with child porn. Can't recall the disposition of that one, but yeah, they go ape over child porn. If there's a child, and nudity, *bing* you're in jail. The ways of the law don't need to make any sense when compared to the way the world works.
reply | thread )
userinfo atreic
[userpic]
2004/04/05 12:20:10
Sigh. The law should protect kids. The laws about child porn *do* protect kids. If parents let their kids do dangerous things, or even things that they're too young to understand the future stigma and social inacceptability of, then the law, and society as a whole, should step in to stop the children doing it. I don't think that should have been charging her at all, but "something should be done TM" if a kid had done that.

Then again, I think this is just a case of 15 being nearly 16, being not really about a kid. There has to be a random age of consent, for all sorts of reasons* but borderline cases should be treated individually.

*well, kids have to be protected TM. So we need to define what a kid is. I suppose there could be some sort of sexual/mental maturity test, that everyone had to take when they were ready (think driving test, although, err, maybe not with the practical element...) and then you could lower the age you could first apply for that from 16, but treat someone as a minor from the point of view of sex laws, marrage etc until they'd passed it... Hmmm.
reply | thread )

< | 15 glosses | comment | > )

This is just extracting the urine... - Squaring the circle... — LiveJournal

> log in
> recent entries
> fiends
> archive
> toothywiki page
> profile
> new entry
> recent comments


> go to top